Which organizations or activists have publicly accused Joy Reid of homophobia and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple advocacy groups, journalists and individual critics publicly accused Joy Reid of homophobia after archival blog posts (from roughly 2007–2009) resurfaced that mocked gay people, outed or speculated about individuals’ sexuality, and opposed same‑sex marriage; PFLAG rescinded an ally award and outlets including BBC, NBC News, The New York Times and others documented the complaints and Reid’s apologies and subsequent claims of hacking [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting shows Reid apologized for some posts, later suggested some entries may have been fabricated or the product of tampering, and faced ongoing scrutiny as more posts came to light [1] [5] [4].
1. The first wave: social media users and media outlets that exposed old posts
The controversy began when a Twitter user and then media outlets unearthed and amplified excerpts from Reid’s defunct blog “The Reid Report,” highlighting posts that mocked homosexuality, outed or speculated about public figures’ sexualities, and used language now widely described as homophobic; news organizations including Mediaite, BBC and NBC reported the resurfacing and summarized the content that drew criticism [1] [6] [7].
2. Organized response: PFLAG rescinds an award
PFLAG National, an established LGBT advocacy group, publicly rescinded the Straight for Equality in Media award it had planned to give Reid after the newly highlighted blog comments prompted the organization to say it could not proceed “in light of new information,” explicitly citing the homophobic posts that had emerged [2] [3].
3. News organizations and long-form outlets documented the pattern
Major outlets — The New York Times, CBS, Deadline, Variety and others — ran follow‑ups detailing a pattern of posts that included mocking gay sex scenes, speculation about politicians’ sexualities and opposition to same‑sex marriage. Those reports placed the blog material in a timeline and described Reid’s initial apology in December followed by renewed scrutiny in April and June as additional posts surfaced [4] [5] [8] [3].
4. Reid’s responses: apologies, denials, and claims of tampering
Joy Reid issued apologies for certain posts and at times said she did not “remember” writing some of the offensive material; she and her lawyers later suggested an “unknown, external party” may have accessed and manipulated her blog and said the FBI had been contacted to investigate potential criminal activity related to online accounts — while some reporting and archivists found no evidence of hacking [1] [6] [5] [3].
5. Critics beyond LGBT groups: former colleagues and conservative outlets
Beyond LGBT advocacy, conservative outlets and some former colleagues amplified or framed the revelations to question Reid’s past conduct and credibility; for example, Fox News recounted allegations from ex‑supervisors about homophobic behavior in earlier radio roles, contributing to a broader chorus of public criticism [9].
6. Scope and specifics of the alleged homophobia in the posts
Reports cataloguing the material describe a range of content: mocking gay love scenes (Brokeback Mountain), suggesting kissing between men disgusted straight people, accusing gay men of attraction to “post‑pubescent” types, labeling politicians with homophobic epithets and joking about celebrities’ sexualities — language that outlets characterized as homophobic and led to public rebukes [10] [11] [7] [4].
7. Two competing narratives in the record
The record shows competing interpretations: critics and LGBT advocates treated the blog entries as evidence of homophobic views that warranted public rebuke and the rescinding of an award [2] [3]; Reid and her representatives alternatively framed some content as misattributed or the result of tampering and emphasized apologies where she accepted responsibility for earlier remarks [1] [5].
8. Limitations of available reporting and what is not covered
Available sources document the posts, the rescission by PFLAG, Reid’s mixed responses and major outlets’ timelines, but they do not provide public forensic proof of either comprehensive hacking or definitive authorship for each specific post; some sources note investigations and claims about tampering while archivists reported no evidence of hacking [5] [3]. Available sources do not mention conclusive forensic outcomes tying every contested entry to an external actor [3].
9. Takeaway: why the accusations stuck and why debate continued
Accusations gained traction because multiple excerpts showed language commonly understood as homophobic and because an advocacy group (PFLAG) publicly revoked an honor — a concrete institutional rebuke [2] [3]. The debate persisted because Reid mixed apologies with assertions of possible tampering and because subsequent reporting continued to surface more problematic posts, leaving the public narrative contested [1] [4].