Connect with us

Opinions

Veteran Blade features editor recalls all-time best and worst celeb interviews

From loquacious and chatty to boring and condescending, star subjects run gamut

Published

on

Joey DiGuglielmo, gay news, Washington Blade
Blade Features Editor Joey DiGuglielmo at his celeb-ensconced desk in 2007. (Blade file photo)

Iā€™m naming names, so get ready. 

I came to the Blade in October 2006 as news editor, then became features editor in 2008, which is my title to this day. Thatā€™s probably a record, but I have no easy way to verify that.

One small part of my job is interviewing celebrities. Itā€™s tough when itā€™s somebody youā€™re not familiar with and you have to research from scratch. Itā€™s super fun when itā€™s a star youā€™ve followed for a long time and can go deep and ask interesting, off-the-beaten-path stuff. I work hard to eschew the same handful of questions theyā€™ve been asked nine zillion times before (e.g. to John Waters: ā€œWhat was Divine like?ā€). You can geek out and go crazy deep/obscure for a few questions but obviously you donā€™t want an entire interview of that. 

Often the audiences for these pieces are people who follow the subjects avidly already so you want to make it interesting for them as well as the casual fan. Nothing pisses off a fan base faster than a set of questions that sounds like you cobbled them together in 10 minutes after reading the press release and the Wikipedia page. 

These are almost always done by phone because rarely is the celeb in D.C. prior to the event thatā€™s bringing them to our region. I only agree to e-mail interviews under extremely rare circumstances because they usually cherry pick which questions they want to answer and thereā€™s no chance to press them if they play coy or evasive. I let Larry Kramer by on a pass because he has severe hearing loss (he was great ā€” we went several rounds of follow-up by e-mail) and Janis Ian, who was on vocal rest. 

Itā€™s tough when their handlers have scheduled back-to-back phoners and you only get 15 minutes and have to keep firing like youā€™re in the lightening round to cram in as much as possible. The celebs donā€™t give a shit ā€” even under tight time constraints, youā€™ll sometimes get somebody whoā€™ll ramble on for 10 minutes answering one question, so youā€™re fucked (Iā€™m looking at you Megan Mullally). You also learn quickly, these people are never your friends; many of them are just good at giving you the temporary illusion that theyā€™re chummy with you. As a mentor of mine used to say, you see how quickly that stops when the column inches are over. 

It also sucks when their publicists stay on the line and cut you off just when youā€™re getting going. In some cases, I get it ā€” some journalists would hog the celebā€™s time so somebody has to be the bad cop. Iā€™m greedy with my celeb time but never go crazy long. Thirty-40 minutes is ideal ā€” you can actually breathe a little, give them time to ramble, then pick your most interesting responses to use. You always have to have more prepared than youā€™ll get to in case they go Bob Dylan on you and give one-word answers. The best situations are when you develop rapport, keep them engaged (typically this kind of thing bores them) and get them riffing way off their press release.  

So after 11 years of doing this, Iā€™m giving out my all-time best and worst awards for Blade interviews. Weā€™ll start with the worst.Ā 

5. Stand-up legend Margaret Cho (ā€œMothersā€™ Day with Margaretā€ 2013; ā€œMargaret goes ā€˜psyCHOā€™ on new tour,ā€ 2015) ā€” perfectly nice lady but not funny in interview mode; like, at all. Makes you feel like sheā€™d rather be doing anything but this. 

4. Actress Maria Bello (ā€œDonā€™t label Maria Bello,ā€ 2015) ā€” didnā€™t have time for anything much once we got through talking about her book. 

3. Andy Cohen (ā€œDeep Talk with Andy Cohen,ā€ 2017) ā€” polite but just didnā€™t give me much to work with. Very succinct responses delivered in as few words as possible. It was like he couldnā€™t wait to get off the phone. 

2. Singer Natalie Merchant (ā€œNatalie Merchant goes deep,ā€ 2017) ā€” ostensibly polite and decent elaboration but sounded about as excited as a clerk at a D.C. 7-11. 

1. Jazz pianist Patricia Barber (ā€œCerebral jazz,ā€ 2013) ā€” stock answers, kind of a tone of ā€œwhy would you ask me thatā€? to every answer that made me feel she thought I was an idiot. 

DISHONORABLE MENTION: Rufus Wainwright (ā€œRufus Wainwright on opera, revisiting his first two albums,ā€ 2018) ā€” Nice enough guy, but we were late getting started, then his handlers cut us off as if the clock had started at the time they were supposed to have called. 

Best:

5. Actress Valerie Harper (ā€œTaking on Tallulah,ā€ 5-29-09) ā€” one of the rare ones I got to do in person. Chatty, funny, willing to go anywhere the questions took her ā€” a delight.

4. Singer/actress Patti LuPone (ā€œReminiscing with LuPone,ā€ 9-8-11) ā€” I was terrified. Miss LuPone does not suffer fools gladly and Iā€™m not a show queen, so I was winging it slightly (but I had read her then-new memoir! You donā€™t always have time.). The appointed time came. Her husband answers and says sorry, sheā€™s getting her hair done. She called a few hours later and apologized. It was perfect ā€” that mild inconvenience put her more at my mercy, so she wasnā€™t prickly at all. 

3. Figure skater/personality Adam Rippon (ā€œAdam Rippon on new life, loves, memoir, ass and skating in the nude,ā€ 2019) ā€” candid, funny, balked at nothing, not in a hurry and genuinely sweet. 

2. Motown legend Mary Wilson (ā€œMary Wilson shares Motown memories,ā€ 2017) ā€” the Supremes co-founder gleefully went anywhere I led and elaborated without prodding. Miss Ross, of course, has yet to deign us with her presence. 

1. Actress Lily Tomlin (ā€œLaughing with Lily,ā€ 2014; ā€œLily Tomlin on why sheā€™s happy she lost the Emmy this year ā€” and a whole lot more,ā€ 2018) ā€” unsurprisingly, itā€™s often true that the bigger the name, the more youā€™re likely to encounter a diva. Tomlin, as many in my field would attest, is the exception. Exceedingly nice, the only celeb to ever make a point of using my name and never in a rush. The ultimate class act A-lister. 

HONORABLE MENTIONS: Bruce Vilanch (ā€œDishing with Bruce,ā€ 2013), Leslie Jordan (ā€œFlamboyantly funny,ā€ 2016; ā€œCharacter actor Leslie Jordan on his pony obsession, TV hits and misses and dream threesome,ā€ 2019); Salim Gauwloos (ā€œFormer Madonna dancer Slam recalls ā€˜Blond Ambition Tour,ā€™ ā€˜Truth or Dareā€™); Dave Koz (ā€œA Dave Koz Christmas,ā€ 2014, ā€œKoz and effect,ā€ 2011), Yvonne Craig (ā€œHoly spandex tights! Itā€™s Batgirl!,ā€ 2015) and Alison Arngrim (ā€œLife on the ā€˜Prairie,ā€™ā€ 2011). 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

A confused Biden and a deranged Trump

Sad state of affairs after first presidential debate

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden debate on CNN on Jun 27, 2024. (Screen captures via CNN)

Joe Biden was clearly ready with some facts for this debate, the sad part is he couldnā€™t articulate them. He sounded raspy, and lost track of what he was saying in the first few minutes of the debate. He did get better as the debate progressed but came off sounding and looking like an old man. For those of us hoping he would sound like he did at the State of the Union, or the speech he gave on anti-Semitism, it was a huge disappointment. 

So, where his campaign goes from here is anyoneā€™s guess. Behind the scenes some Democrats are calling for him to step down as the candidate. But that is much more difficult than it seems at this time. And then, will there be a fight for who the candidate will be. Will it automatically be Kamala Harris, or will it be someone else?  So many unanswered questions over the next couple of weeks.

The only positive take-away for Democrats from the debate was how deranged Donald Trump sounded. He refused to deal with any issue, refused to say he would accept the results of this election, refused to acknowledge climate change, or Jan. 6, and kept saying how the states should control the issue of abortion, and womenā€™s health. Every one of these things should be frightening to so many people. It is clear if Trump is elected, we will have a dictator in the White House, who believes Hitler did good things. His election is scary for women, young people, Black Americans, and the LGBTQ community. If states control issues related to any of these groups, they are screwed. 

One of the very few good lines Biden got across was when he said 40 high-level Trump appointees, members of the Cabinet, and his vice president, have refused to endorse him as they know him best. People need to take their word for how bad he will be should he be reelected. Trump kept talking nonsense and it was hard to keep up with the lies. The moderators didnā€™t call him on any of it, but CNN has said before the debate they wouldnā€™t. But then Biden missed so many chances to call him on the garbage he was spouting. I kept hoping he would turn to him and say clearly, ā€œYou canā€™t believe all the BS you are spouting. You sound like a deranged six-year-old and someone who would take our country down the tubes.ā€

Now I accept the fact Biden speaks more slowly and softly. Though after the debate they said he had a cold. He could have said that at the beginning of the debate, if it was true, and explained his voice to the audience. And while we know he has a stutter, it seemed so much worse during the debate than it normally does. Was it nerves, maybe, but difficult nonetheless for him, and for those listening. We must have compassion for anyone with any kind of a disability. Then one had to ask, was he over-prepared for this debate? Was he so scripted he didnā€™t dare say anything off script. When he did, they got into this thing about golf handicaps and both sounded so childish. 

Biden did manage to talk about the things he has done, and the successes of his first administration. There have been many. First bringing the country successfully out of the pandemic. He spoke about unemployment being the lowest it has been in decades, and the more than 15 million jobs created since he took office. He was honest about inflation and the fact that not all the economic successes the country is having are trickling down to every American. He understands that rents are high, and grocery bills are still too high. He made clear he wants to raise taxes on the rich and Trump wants to lower them. He had a plan to ensure Social Security would stay solvent, Trump had nothing as usual. 

Finally, I was surprised that in his two-minute closing, Biden didnā€™t go back to the issues of abortion, climate change, and saving democracy. Did his debate prep team tell him not to? If so, they were wrong. Whether it remains Joe Biden on the ticket, or is someone else, I am 1,000% committed to do everything I can to see Democrats are elected across the board. It is clear to me, and should be to all decent people, electing Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans, will be the end of our country as we know it today.Ā 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

As fewer anti-LGBTQ bills pass, the fight gets harder

A growing indifference to suffering that is baked into the legal system

Published

on

(Photo by Proxima Studio/Bigstock)

In recent years, advocates have faced an unprecedented avalanche of anti-LGBTQ legislation each spring. In 2024, however, the onslaught seems to have faltered somewhat. While hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills were once again introduced, as many state legislative sessions draw to a close, fewer bills have been enacted into law.

While that may seem like cause for celebration, itā€™s also cause for concern.

To be sure, the slowdown in anti-LGBTQ legislation is welcome. Beginning in 2020, legislation targeting transgender rights in particular had sailed through state legislatures, with the number and scope of hostile bills increasing each year. Unlike earlier years when one or two prominent anti-LGBTQ bills triggered a national pushback that often chastened lawmakers, hundreds of bills have been introduced during legislative sessions in the last four years, often with little debate or scrutiny, and dozens of them zealously passed into law.

Those bills do real damage when they are enacted, cutting LGBTQ people off from material benefits like health care and domestic violence sheltersrecognition by the state, and equal participation in public life. Even when they fail to become law, they have devastating effects on the mental health of LGBTQ people, throwing their lives into disarray and sapping valuable time and energy from LGBTQ communities. This especially affects children, with more than 90 percent of LGBTQ young people in a recent Trevor Project survey reporting that politics had negatively affected their personal well-being.

But the recent slowdown, far from being a positive signal, may well reflect a growing indifference to the suffering of LGBTQ people that is now baked into the political and legal system. Opponents of LGBTQ rights have normalized hostile rhetoric and enacted draconian laws that seemed unthinkable just a couple of years ago, and even ardent supporters of equality find themselves unsure how they might reverse state laws that unapologetically strip away LGBTQ rights.

If anything, it has become apparent that the damage that has been done since 2020 will most likely reverberate for a generation, and the past year shows that restoring and advancing LGBTQ rights will be a painstaking endeavor.

And one sobering reason for the slowing pace of anti-LGBTQ legislation is that, at this point, many conservative states have already stripped away important rights, particularly for transgender children. As of 2024, half of the states in the U.S. prohibit transgender girls from playing school sports, and half have banned or criminalized at least some forms of medically indicated healthcare.

Put differently, lawmakers arenā€™t targeting some rights this year because theyā€™ve already eviscerated them.

Yet even as the pace of legislation slows, critical rights continue to be stripped away. According to the ACLU, more than 30 anti-LGBTQ bills have been enacted in 2024 ā€” fewer than the 84 enacted in 2023, but still far too many. Among them, Utah and Mississippi restricted transgender people from accessing bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools and other government buildings.

Lawmakers in Ohio overrode the governorā€™s veto to ban transgender children from receiving gender-affirming care or playing sports consistent with their gender identity. South Carolina and Wyoming similarly enacted blanket bans preventing transgender children from accessing gender-affirming care.

Many of the bills that have been introduced this year sought to expand existing anti-LGBTQ legislation in new ways. Alabama, for example, successfully expanded its bathroom ban from K-12 schools to colleges and universities. Even those that didnā€™t pass are in many cases likely to be reintroduced after the 2024 election, particularly if anti-LGBTQ lawmakers increase their showing in state legislatures or if governors who are supportive of LGBTQ rights are no longer positioned to veto hostile legislation.

In many states with anti-LGBTQ legislation, administrative and regulatory agencies are being used to curtail LGBTQ rights even further. Florida offers an instructive example. Even after years of anti-LGBTQ legislation, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles took things a step further within its mandate, and decided in 2024 that transgender people could no longer update the gender marker on their driverā€™s licenses. This echoes recent regulatory crackdowns elsewhere in the United States, from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigating parental support for transgender children as child abuse to school boards across the country stripping away lifesaving resources in schools.

And while many believed that courts would provide a bulwark against discriminatory legislation and regulations, in part because of strong Supreme Court precedent to suggest that anti-transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, that has not consistently been the case. Trial courts have largely found in favor of transgender litigants, criticizing the insufficient justification and discriminatory purpose of anti-transgender laws, but some appellate courts have nevertheless allowed the laws to take effect.

Perhaps most alarming, there are advocates and lawmakers who, if in a position to do so, are eager to carry out an even harsher attack on LGBTQ rights. Project 2025, which a group of conservative organizations has drafted as a roadmap for a second Trump administration, promises an even more draconian attack on LGBTQ rights. This would include rolling back existing nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people, reinstating the transgender military ban, and codifying state restrictions on transgender rights at the federal level, in addition to limiting recognition of same-sex relationships.

The anti-LGBTQ backlash may be waning in certain respects ā€” but in other ways, it has only just begun. As we celebrate Pride, LGBTQ people and their allies should be mindful of the need to support those communities whose rights are being eroded, invest in transgender rights organizing, demand that lawmakers prioritize LGBTQ rights, and fight for the independent institutions and protections for basic freedoms that are essential to hold power to account.

Ryan Thoreson is a specialist on LGBTQ rights at Human Rights Watch and teaches at the University of Cincinnati College of Law.

Continue Reading

Commentary

LGBTQ people deserve freedom, a sense of home, and belonging

Latoya Nugent found refuge in Canada after fleeing Jamaica

Published

on

Latoya Nugent, center, at the March for LGBTQ+ Rights in Toronto on May 16, 2024. (Photo courtesy of Rainbow Railroad)

Seven years ago, my fight for queer liberation in notoriously homophobic Jamaica culminated in a violent and brutal unlawful arrest and detention. This was the peak of decades of persecution due to my sexual orientation and work as a queer human rights defender and activist. It completely broke me and silenced me. I suffered severe emotional trauma, from which I am still recovering years later. 

Following that life-threatening arrest, I became a shell of who I once was. I cut off communication with my community for several years, unable to face my fear of the police and the hostility of the world around me. 

In 2022, I was one of the 9,591 at-risk LGBTQI+ people who reached out to Rainbow Railroad for help. Through the organizationā€™s Emergency Travel Support (ETS) program, which relocates at-risk LGBTQI+ people and helps them make asylum claims in countries like the U.S., I resettled in Canada where Iā€™ve been living safely with dignity and pride. 

This Pride Month, Iā€™m reflecting on what it means to be safe. Who has access to safety and why others are excluded from it. What is our collective role and responsibility in expanding safety for our queer and trans communities, especially those in the over 60 countries that criminalize LGBTQI+ people? 

Safety means different things to different people depending on our experiences and journeys. For me, itā€™s the difference between suffering and thriving, feeling worthless and worthy, and feeling hopeless and hopeful. It is the difference between displacement and belonging. 

Rainbow Railroad recently released a report that examines the state of global LGBTQI+ persecution, drawing on data from 15,352 help requests spanning 100+ countries. This report is significant for several reasons, chief among them is the reality that no other organization or government captures the breadth and depth of data on LGBTQI+ forced displacement, perpetuating the invisibility of queer individuals in humanitarian responses. The report is an important contribution to the discourse on the intersection of queer identity, LGBTQI+ persecution, forced displacement, and humanitarian protection systems. 

Of all the data and insights uncovered in the report, I was most struck by one statistic ā€” 91 percent of at-risk LGBTQI+ individuals relocated through the ETS program reported an improved sense of personal safety. This statistic is particularly personal to me because ETS was the only relocation option accessible to me in 2022 when I reached out to Rainbow Railroad for help. 

I am in that 91 percent because I am now thriving. I feel worthy. I am hopeful about life. And I belong. 

Today, among the 120 million forcibly displaced people around the world, queer and trans individuals face compounded complications from homophobia and transphobia while trying to access protection and safety. And while the anti-gender movement continues to swell in some states, I firmly believe that the U.S. remains a global leader in refugee resettlement ā€” which is why the U.S. government must uphold its international obligations and reverse its recentĀ executive orderĀ that imposes severe restrictions on the right to seek asylum.Ā 

Queer and trans individuals deserve freedom, a sense of home, and belonging ā€” realities that flourish only when rooted in the bedrock of safety. 

There is a lot more work to be done. It’s challenging. It’s complex. It’s costly. But I have experienced firsthand what the transformative impact of Rainbow Railroadā€™s work has on someone’s life ā€” that ability to lift people out of danger into safety is something worth celebrating this Pride. 

Latoya Nugent is the head of engagement for Rainbow Railroad.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular