Volume VII, Number 7 September 1992 AUC 9 ‘BURLINGTON FREE {Bring It To My Attention” Richard Comwall Ronald L. Thomburg, Editor of the Bur- ei lington Free Press, invites us to “bring it .=__i=§ " to my attention” whenever “we [The Free Press] fall short, particularly when it comes to coverage of the gay and lesbian community.” lVIr. Thomburg made this re- sponse to a request I made in a letter to him on July 10 that the Free Press start carrying a regular Gannett column by a lesbian, Deb Price, devoted exclusively to lesbian and gay issues. Her home paper is the Detroit News and her column is carried by USA Today, Des Moines Register, and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Since it is distributed to all Gannett pa- pers, it is easily available to the Free Press. In response to my request and a copy of The Advocate’s story in issue no. 606 (30 June 1992) on how well her column has been received by straight as well as queer readers, Mr. Thomburg indicated that they have a great deal of material they have to choose from. However, he also ac- knowledged “the responsibility that the Free Press has to cover all segments of our diverse community with fairness and without bias.” Of course, the notion that people who are ignorant of a distinct peo- ple can “cover them without bias” is al- most impossible to attain and many of us could give him examples of negative jour- nalistic treatment by Free Press staffers. The only way a newspaper can adequately cover lesbian and gay issues is to have les- blan and gay staff play a major role creat- mg and consulting on such coverage. A second example of the Free Press’ in- adequate coverage of our issues arose with the complete lack of any coverage, not even a “Film Capsule” 4-line summary of the plot and star rating, of the film Edward II. This is the film highlight of the year for gay men (see review in this issue) and by amazing chance Merrill’s carried it from 7/17/92 through 7/23/92 at the Century Plaza. When I spoke with the Free Press’ features editor, Juli Metzger, she said she had searched all her sources for reviews of Edward II and had not been able to find any. She acknowledged having re- ceived the review printed in this OITM which I had FAXed her on 7/20/92 but was completely unaware of the reviews of it in the Bay Area Reporter on 26 March 92 and in The Advocate on 7 April 92. She said that reviews in these two places were not available to her. In other words, the Free Press does rg have access to queer information, belying Editor-in-Chief’s claim that the Free Press has more than enough material to choose from. The Free Press must make some significant changes in its sources of stories and its sources of viewpoints on diversity in Vermont. The higher level staff at the Free Press also probably have little insight that a movie like this maybe of primary interest to gay men rather than lesbians. Mr. Thomburg’s reference to one community of lesbians and gay men suggests little awareness of the fact that the interests of queer men and women do not always coincide. It is not likely that a plea for “responsible journalism” to serve the diverse peoples of Vermont will, by itself, persuade the Free Press to do this even though it would seem to fit the stated goal of the Free Press's “Community Visits” which are being held around the state. The only strong argument for better coverage is that the Free Press receive clear evidence of a significant lesbian, gay and bi clien- tele for their paper. Certainly this was what, in the past year, persuaded the New Continued on page 9 er Denies ption Petition In an opinion contrary to that of Ad- dison County Probate Judge Ketch- um, Washington County Judge George Belcher denied an adoption petition by a Chittenden'County les- bian couple who sought the legal rec- ognition of the non-biological par- ent. The situation is somewhat similar to an adoption approved by Judge Ketchum in December. In that case a second parent was allowed to adopt the child her partner had adopted the previous year. In the case decided by Judge Belcher, one of the parents is the biological moth- er of the children. Belcher, while acknowledging that it was clearly in the best interests of both the children and the family that the adoption be approved, refused to grant the petition. His based his rea- soning on the Vermont adoption stat- ute which reads, “A person or a hus- band and wife wife together,... may adopt.” Same sex couples are not al- lowed to marry in Vermont and therefore, he would not approve the petition. In his decision, Judge Belcher wrote, “Where children are concerned, the best interests of the child pre- dominate our law.” He then went on to deny the petition, saying, “the pro- posed adoptive mother does not sat- isfy the statutory prerequisite to adoption”, and that “if the legislature desires ...only a simple statutory change is required.” The couple, represented by Julie Frame ' and David Curtis of Hoff, Agel, Curtis and Pachtcand Cassidyof Burlington, is appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. This is the first case of its kind in the country to reach the state Supreme Court 1evel.V