So is Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno, a flamboyant fashion journalist from Austria, just the gay equivilant of blackface? 

Illiciting mostly "yes it is 'queerface'" responses, I don't think the embedded video does much justice to the question. As noted by one of the interviewers, the line between stereotype and satire is thin. A line that may also be non-existent. 

This bit from wikipedia (yes, it can be reliable) partially illuminates the problem(s) with targeting a satirical comedy like Bruno.

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.

If the goal is to ridicule and deride modern homophobia, it's difficult to do that without actually drawing it out into the open. To strip it of code words and nuance and to see homophobia manifest itself in explicit terms and actions.

Without going to the extremes, it would be unlikely that Bruno would be able to get most to openly express the hostility, fear or misconceptions they have towards the Gay community.

What keeps society functioning as it is, are the lines we're able to draw around and between topics, ideas, people and mores. And as long as those lines are visible, it's near impossible to get people to cross of their own accord, to confess their own shortcomings. What Bruno does, rightly or wrongly, not just erases those lines, he baits some to cross them and for the purposes of comedy pushes others over.

If Bruno is anything like Borat in construction, there will definitely be moments when Cohen will have done such a good job of pushing buttons for the purposes of creating a comedic mis en scene that the satirical point may have been loss.That will leave astute viewer to ask what's more important? Going for the laugh or making the point. Bruno is being marketed as a comedy and it was made because it is a comedy first and foremost. No big laughs would most likely equal no big money (or, major studio support). 

I'll end on this last point, as I'm not sure I addressed the queerface issue point blank. What's rarely mentioned, is that blackface had no political or sociological point to it's existence. As negative as it was, and contrary to belief, it was never purposefully designed to destroy Black culture.

It was distortion of Black culture, not a weapon against Black culture. To that end, one would be hard pressed to name anyone that overtly used blackface to "ridicule" or "deride" America's policies or views on race--in other words, using blackface as a weapon against racism. It was a form of entertainment plain and simple and was never designed--or to my knowledge--used as an instrument of social change. (Take note: I fully affirm that many blackface performers did use their stature and money to affect change off the stage.)

So if Bruno truly is queerface, would you rather have him fighting for you or against you?