Time magazine's Rita Healy has a profile this week on Tim Gill, who made a fortune with Quark desktop software and now heads the Gill Foundation, a major moneybag on the gay left. Time doesn't use the word "left" or "liberal" in the entire article. Instead, Gill is favorably cast as fighting for justice and equality: "Impatient with the lack of gay rights progress this past decade, Gill is pushing hard to end injustice and inequality by the end of the next decade."
Healy reports that this gay mogul has been a powerful backer of Democrats. His foundation "has invested $110 million nationwide in gay causes over the past decade. The Gill Action Fund threw $15 million into a dozen states during the 2006 midterm elections, targeting 70 politicians regarded as unhelpful to gay causes: 50 went down." Gill helped elect Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar in Colorado. Healy explained "The money is not always filtered through political parties, although much goes to Democrats. Almost all goes to tax-exempt 527 political organizations." None of them are apparently to be described as "liberal" groups.
Healy began by noting that Gill is number four on Out magazine's new list of the 50 most powerful gays and lesbians in America. New York magazine is huffing again on behalf of the gay left, arguing that gay journalists shouldn't be skulking around in "the closet." They're pointing fingers at allegedly gay CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, placed on the cover of Out magazine. The Out list includes a pile of entertainment and news media names, including the "gay mafia" at the New York Times.
1. David Geffen
2. Anderson Cooper
3. Ellen DeGeneres
4. Tim Gill
5. Barney Frank
6. Rosie O’Donnell
7. The New York Times Gay Mafia: Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliott, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, and Eric Wilson
8. Marc Jacobs
9. Andrew Tobias [formerly a columnist with Time]
10. Brian Graden [MTV executive that oversees the gay Logo channel]
Time's Gill profile reminds me of a philanthropist contrast we found ten years ago in the May 1997 edition of our MediaWatch newsletter. George Soros (mentioned in the new Gill profile) was merely a "philanthropist" in Time's eyes, while conservative funder Richard Mellon Scaife was a "conservative agitator."
The April 21 issue of Time magazine featured its list of the "25 Most Influential" people of 1997. According to Time, if you're a millionaire and you help conservatives, you're contributing to the breakdown of society. If you're a billionaire who gives solely to liberal causes, you're seen as a savior.
On one page Time profiled Richard Scaife, whom the magazine labeled a "Conservative Agitator." His bio began: "If conservative thinkers like Bill Bennett and Paul Weyrich are the brainpower behind the resurgent American right, the horsepower comes from Richard Mellon Scaife. For close to four decades, the 64-year-old Pennsylvanian has used his millions to back anti-liberal ideas and their proponents." Later, Time added: "He controls the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which helps subsidize rabidly anti-Clinton magazines as well as conservative social-policy projects."
If Scaife is considered a "conservative agitator," it would follow that George Soros would be tagged a "liberal agitator," but Time's subhead labeled him a "philanthropist." Soros' bio read: "And he has been stirring controversy by directing his dollars to an array of hot-button political causes tied to his personal ideal of an 'open society' and by writing an iconoclastic critique of free-market capitalism." Among the projects promoted by this "philanthropist," Time noted: "$1 million to help pass initiatives in California and Arizona last year that legalized medicinal use of marijuana," and "$50 million for a fund to help legal immigrants" overcome welfare reform.
Gill also wasn't pictured in spooky black-and-white like a horror-movie villain.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Gay mafia an apt description
April 7, 2007 - 12:34 ET by nkviking75Gay Mafia is an apt description. The activists seem less interested in persuading anyone than they are in intimidating us all into submission.
Isn't it funny how many big money fat cats guide the fortunes of those "champions of the little guy", the Democrats? A few people with money would literally buy our government if they could.
"Impatient with the lack
April 7, 2007 - 12:42 ET by botg"Impatient with the lack of gay rights progress this past decade, Gill is pushing hard to end injustice and inequality by the end of the next decade
Check earnings and education profiles for gay vs straight as groups. This would require affirmative action for straights. Of course the one stat that favors heterosexuals is life expectancy, no doubt caused by govt. inaction. (can't be behavior)
This is just another attempt
April 7, 2007 - 16:24 ET by HokieconThis is just another attempt at making up rights and special victim classes where none should exist.
Homosexuals already are protected under most anti-discrimination statutes. The in-your-face attitude of a lot of "gay rights" groups is more of a turn off to the voting public than a turn on. Politically, they are shooting themselves in the foot if they think that militant grass roots PACs and lobbyists are going to be able to make headway if the majority of the consitituency is against the creation of rights for special groups.
If the gay community was smart, they would take their issues to the state levels and stay away from the federal. Lobby to the states that they are just like everyone else with the minor exception of sexual preference. Lobby the state governments to allow equal treatment for life partnership provided that a legal contractual commitment can be shown. Forget "gay marriage", go for a "life contract" or something akin to a common law arrangement. I think it would be less painful for the rest of us and less "in your face".
--Hokiecon
Hokie, that would fall shor
April 7, 2007 - 16:36 ET by botgHokie, that would fall short of the true goal which is to force everyone into accepting and validating their morality. Personally i have no problem with domestic partnership or whatever you wish to call it. Marriage however is for that group of people who can have and raise children. Gays can adopt true, though i would be sure to scrutinize them more closely. It's in the sociology look at the the higher incidence of promiscuity, STDs, etc. which leads to unstable home environment. We really need to seek the rule of law not the exceptions of law.
Note to self: never buy Quark
April 9, 2007 - 05:10 ET by Andrew H.Note to self: never buy Quark stuff.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.