Triumph of the Airheads Shelley Gare Park Street Press, 2007 In her recently published book, Shelley Gare discusses the rise of the 'airhead' within western societies. Is there an LGBT media equivalent? Firstly, what is an 'airhead?" Gare lists seven telltale vices of this species, which include: (i) hyperconsumerism, and obsession with ‘bling', no matter how meaningless; (ii) they're impressed by numbers, not the adequacy or otherwise of the research methods used to get there; (iii) they only read glossies, and not upmarket ones like Metro or North and South at that - at least those titles do proper investigative journalism; (iv) these folks are atomised individualists - they don't care about it as long as it doesn't directly affect them; (v) they only have short-term memory capacities, so quoting historical context is meaningless; (vi) they have profound admiration for theoretical models, devoid of anchoring result-based evidence; and finally (vii), they travel in clots, or packs. So, okay, how does our community measure up? It's a good sign that we have such robust debate over the condition of LGBT broadcast and print media quality. I am certainly committed to not getting fundamentalists get away with use of junk science, as I frequently point out their manifest problems with social scientific research in my columns on GayNZ.com. As for glossies, though, Gay Times (UK) and DNA (Australia) often do have informative articles, so they're not that hopeless. However, for the average LGBT person in the street, it's also a good idea to consult professional websites or books on topical or perennial issues, both on subjects inside and outside the ambit of our communities. As for the atomised individual aspect of our communities, well, that's slightly more complicated. HIV/AIDS research suggests that as online hookups for sex forego inclusion within a gay, bi or takatapui community, they end up frustrating nonverbal cues and educating newcomers to sex with other men about the need for safe sex. Short-term memory is a liability, too. Archival memory isn't, which is why LAGANZ and its sister archives are so important. For that matter, so is collecting competitor intelligence from the other side, whether from archives, current publications or through their websites. It's called strategic planning. Given that their cues are taken from the US Christian Right, it's usually a good idea to do some prior checking to see if US LGBT groups have devised any handy rebuttals. As I've noted above, theoretical models need to be critically assessed too. How large is the sample? Is it intended to be representative of the general population? What is the duration of the model tested? Does the research model show signs of undue over-processing of data sets? Is the research published within a peer-reviewed journal? Does it meet the professional evidence-based consensus of that discipline? Do they make unwarranted judgments that cannot be supported from the results? What about the rest of the media? I am in despair over the shocking inadequacy of the mass media in providing a sober objective and neutral analysis of the Section 59 Repeal Bill. Why the hell haven't the media bothered to interview the Psychological Society, Pediatrics Society, Plunket, Barnados, Save the Children and mainline church social service agencies, and see why they support this legislation, based on professional evidence-based proof? Why is it that apart from Scoop, GayNZ.com is the only publication to draw attention to the overwhelmingly fundamentalist nonprofessional composition of opponents of this vital social reform? In this case, the media exactly obsess over people rather than sober analysis, and have poorly served the public. This does not bode well for the future of LGBT debates like adoption reform if this is the best that we can expect. Sadly, it is. Which is why websites like this are necessary. Craig Young - 29th March 2007