On Dec. 28, Gail Shister will commemorate 20 years as the premier television columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Shister says she finds it hard to believe that she has held the same job -- pumping out nearly 4,000 columns -- for so long. The Inky's first female sports reporter in 1979, she found her true niche three years later. And while Shister is usually the one asking the tough questions, City Paper got the rare opportunity to turn the tables.

Gail Shister: I think if people think you're powerful, that automatically gives you power. There have been situations locally where I have printed news that has caused a person to be fired. It really creates a moral dilemma for me of, "Do I print this knowing that this reporter or anchor is going to get fired?" Or, do I give them a heads-up the night before, so that they don't have to read it in the paper? And every time I have decided that it's not my job to tell them they're going to lose their job. That's their manager's job.

CP: There's a lot of buzz on the street about [Fox Philadelphia general manager] Roger LeMay. According to the buzz, Roger LeMay is on the ropes, but I haven't seen it in your column. What are you waiting for?

GS: I've just been waiting to nail down some things on that story. I mean, I know about that situation. I know what's going on. I just haven't been able to nail a few things down. But I plan to go with it on Thursday.

CP: There have been suggestions that you haven't done it because he's a friend of yours.

GS: I have a lot of people on the beat that I am friendly with. I think there's a big difference between being friendly with a source and being friends. I've taken a lot of shots at Roger over the years. But when somebody's in trouble, and it's somebody who's been in the market for so long, I want to get all my ducks in a row before I go with it.

CP: There was a whole lot of talk that [KYW-TV anchor] Larry Kane had locked himself in his office and had a tantrum [after learning he was being replaced]. You presented his story in a much nobler way. Why?

GS: Well, I really believe in going to the source for everything and he swore to me -- up and down -- that he didn't lock himself in his office and that he didn't have a tantrum. I chose to believe him. But that doesn't mean I haven't written a lot of negative stuff about Larry Kane. God almighty. I have big piece coming out on Larry Kane this Sunday, because his last day is Monday. And, um, it is not a valentine.

GS: I don't see myself as an activist at all. I don't do parades; I don't believe in outing people -- unless it's, for example, a legislator who's backing homophobic legislation. What I do is I don't pretend to be somebody I'm not. When I came to the Inky in 1979, I was the first "out" reporter EVER here, ever. I didn't advertise that I was gay, but it was perfectly obvious -- you'd have to be brain-dead and without a pulse to think that I'm heterosexual. My philosophy is I don't hide who I am and, hopefully, by doing that, that's going to open people's minds to be more accepting.

CP: What do you think of the new Steve Martin television detective show [whose lead characters are a gay couple], Mr. and Mr. Nash?

GS: If it's good, it's long overdue. I've always been a proponent of strong programming with gay leads, as opposed to gay programming for the sake of gay programming. You know, I don't really care whether [a program is] gay or straight. Make me laugh and I'm a happy gal.

CP: In television, it took a long time before blacks could be taken seriously in dramatic roles. Do you think gays are on the same track?

GS: I do. When you're talking about gays and drama you've got the possibility of physical affection and I think that producers and directors are much more wary of that. I think if you get a gay character who can make people laugh, it's a lot less threatening to mostly male executives than it would be, let's say, to have a serious relationship between two men or two women. Years ago, on Fox's Melrose Place, one of the guys was gay and Fox was touting how progressive they were. But in the last episode, the guy was supposed to kiss his boyfriend and they cut it. And their reasoning was they were going to lose a million dollars in advertising if they ran the scene. And I remember having this big argument with the then-president of Fox Entertainment. I said, "OK. The message is that in Melrose Place all these straight men and women are total sluts -- and that's fine to show. But here is a gay man, who's in a relationship -- a love relationship with somebody -- but he's not allowed to have a sex life." He had no answer.