The gay, left-wing press is increasingly irrelevant—which explains why they’re still obsessed with Donald Trump

Donald Trump left office on January 20, 2021. That’s almost a year ago—or three hundred and seven days, to be precise. 

Either way, it’s a long time. Especially in modern politics, where things move at light speed. 

Since then, a number of big things have happened in America: most notably, Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which has left LGBT people being hunted by the Taliban.  

There’s also the Human Rights Campaign’s continuing association with Alphonso David, despite allegations in a report by the New York attorney general’s office that he tried to smear Andrew Cuomo’s alleged victims of sexual misconduct.

These are both big stories. Yet, for some reason, many editors ignore them in favor of focusing on past political powers of 2020. Namely, Trump and his inner circle.

This is particularly true of the gay, left-wing media, whose fascination with the 75-year-old is borderline monomaniacal. Think I’m exaggerating? Just take a look at the Advocate, which has published more than one hundred stories about him, or his family, in the last few months alone. 

To put that into perspective, that’s an average of one article every single day. All of which have the same predictable payoff: orange man bad.

As a consumer, this is suspicious. It suggests they’re either terrified of Trump running again in 2024, and therefore aren’t following the news agenda (nothing has been confirmed about his intentions for the next election), or they’re relying on him for web traffic. 

After reading their latest hit job, entitled “For the Trump Family, LGBTQ+ People Are Nothing but a Joke,” I suspect it’s both.

In it, author John Casey randomly argues that Donald Trump, Jr. is a bigot because his “ridiculing, mocking, attacking, and joking know no bounds,” — before then mocking and ridiculing various members of the Trump family without any nuance or generosity. Hypocrisy, much?

Much of Casey’s article is anecdotal, but none of it is compelling. Not least because it stems from a conversation he had with Mary Trump, the former president’s niece. This might be fine, except her latest book has been out for three months and is surely spent in terms of headlines. What could she possibly have to say now that genuinely constitutes news? Nothing, of course. 

But, then again, why should it? They want to publish activism, not journalism.

Or, rather, activism at the intersection of commerce. See, Trump still gets clicks, which converts to money. And there isn’t much of that sloshing around in the gay press anymore.

Back in 1967, when the Advocate first launched, most mainstream publications didn’t touch LGBT issues, so it carved out a lucrative niche for itself. At the height of its power it helped to advance marriage equality and tackle the AIDS epidemic, of which we are all grateful.

But, now that these battles have largely been won, the Advocate and its peers are increasingly irrelevant. Sadly, they have become victims of their own success. And, clearly, it’s having an effect on profit margins.

In 2010, long before the Advocate could rely on Trump’s political phenomena, there were press reports of freelance writers not being paid for their work. “The Advocate owes me money, they know they owe me money and have refused to pay me for over a year,” wrote Matthew Fleischer, detailing his experience.

Later that year, print production of the title was slashed by more than half. What was once a fortnightly glossy became a bi-monthly, with just six issues printed per annum—and only sold as part of a combination subscription package with their publishing stablemate, Out magazine.

Things weren’t looking good. Then, as if by LGBT magic, they found a clickbait villain in Trump. And, since then, they’ve seemingly been unwilling to give him up. Not just because he provides them with a profit, but because he provides them with a renewed sense of purpose.

If Trump were a) still in the White House and b) akin to Robert Mugabe, then more power to them — they’d be justified in such hyper focus, but as any sincere factcheck proves, most of the allegations about Trump’s ‘homophobia’ are either misrepresented or, in fact, false.

For example, Trump’s ban on trans people serving in the military? Not true. His Executive Order does not ban transgender Americans from serving openly in the military, only those currently undergoing medical intervention for gender dysphoria. This is in line with almost all existing military policy regarding personnel who require prolonged, regular medical care, including diabetics. 

Likewise, Trump firing the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS? Not true. He ‘fired’ the old council, which was appointed by Obama, but only in the sense that every president ‘fires’ the appointees of a previous president and then chooses his own.

None of this means I think Trump is faultless. His oratory skills are often lacking and he’s frequently immodest, but none of this justifies the left-wing, gay media’s obsession with him. 

Nor does it excuse their lack of impartiality, which only deceives readers and further marginalizes gay Republicans, who are growing in number, yet still get treated like pariahs by an allegedly ‘inclusive’ community.  

This alone is reason enough to ease up on the witch hunt. But, from a business perspective, the journalists at LGBT publications should also be careful what they wish for. 

After all, Trump is the one thing that stands between them and oblivion.