A gay former Tampa Tribune writer on the mixed signals he got on GLBT issues from Media General

July 16, 2009 at 1:55 pm by Wayne Garcia

David Simanoff was a reporter at the Tampa Tribune for a decade before leaving just as massive layoffs and contraction began at the daily newspaper. He was pretty high profile and a business writer, showing up on News Channel 8 segments often. He is also a gay man.

Now, on his blog, Daily Dave 3.0, he writes about his mixed feelings about whether to join yesterday’s protest of his former employer, Media General, for broadcasting the anti-gay Speechless: Silencing Christians hour-long paid television show on the same evening as St. Pete Pride.

He ultimately decided not to join the Red Flag Rally, but most interesting are his recollections about how his former employer treated GLBT issues. Here’s what he wrote, using the acronym MFE for “my former employer”:

I worked for MFE from 1999 to 2008. During that time, I received mixed signals about the company’s views on GLBT people, including its GLBT employees. My recollection is that gay men and lesbians were accepted in the newsrooms, but that sensitivity about GLBT issues — in fact, all minority issues — declined exponentially as one progressed higher up the organization chart. This is a generalization, and there were some exceptions. At MFE’s parent company in Richmond, Va., I sensed a similar inverse relationship between (a) the size of someone’s paycheck and (b) their level of sophistication on GLBT issues and commitment to a diverse workforce.

I’d like to point out that these are my personal opinions: my own impressions and feelings, synthesized over nearly 10 years with MFE. I speak for no one else.

I was out long before I came to MFE, and this never appeared to cause any tension among my immediate coworkers. I got to attend the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association conventions on the company’s dime — back when news organizations still had travel and training budgets, of course. I recall an ambitious diversity training program that included GLBT issues in the curriculum in the early 2000s.

However:

  • At the time I left the company, MFE did not include sexual orientation in its discrimination policy. When I asked about this, I was told that it wasn’t necessary because MFE is based in Tampa, which has sexual orientation in its discrimination policy. This didn’t seem like a good rationale to me, as it probably doesn’t cover people working for MFE locations outside Tampa city limits, and it doesn’t send a message of inclusion for MFE’s GLBT employees.
  • In 2005, the year after Massachusetts became the first state in the US to adopt marriage equality, MFE mailed a letter to each employee stating that its health care plans would only cover opposite-sex spouses. I felt that MFE was trying to say that in matters of same-sex relationships, the company was so adamant about not recognizing partners that it would even trump state laws.
  • When I left MFE, the company still did not have benefits for same-sex partners. I can think of no other large media company that does not offer domestic partner benefits. When I would ask about this (every year, like clockwork, at the meetings to introduce the new health care and retirement plans) I would be told that the company was concerned about the cost of domestic partner benefits. I would point out that study after study shows that the costs are negligible, and the message it sends to GLBT employees and recruits is incredibly important.

I left MFE feeling mostly confused and frustrated about the company’s approach to GLBT employees. I certainly felt valued by the people with whom I worked, but I also sensed that the big decisionmakers at the organization and its parent company did not fully understand the value that comes from building an inclusive, diverse workplace.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

SEARCH