Toward the end of February, NLGJA had a meaningful opportunity to
reach beyond our newsrooms and inform the public about a particular
topic of concern to many.
Olympic figure
skater Johnny Weir was making news in Turin, but not so much for
his athletic ability as for his “flamboyant” existence.
Coverage of Weir treated us to a flurry of innuendo — terminology
such as flashy, whispers, eccentric, effeminate, flaming and even
the term girly men — in speculative stories about his sexual
orientation.
It all took me
back to a column I wrote for the Fall 2005 issue of NLGJA Outlook, in
which I wondered why we in the news media never ask
public figures about their sexual orientation
(specifically, “Are
you gay?”). That piece subsequently moved me to pen an updated
column, tailored toward the Weir coverage, for a “mainstream” publication,
the San Francisco Chronicle. The op-ed piece — published Sunday,
Feb. 26 — provided that perhaps it was time we did so when
it was relevant to a story.
The feedback from readers was strong.
While much of it was supportive (“Your article was great
and right on.”), the responses, of course, weren’t universally
accepting of the premise. Some readers felt the media should “leave
him alone,” that we should “shut up about it” and
that “IT IS NOBODY’S BUSINESS BUT HIS OWN. GET OUT
OF OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES!!!!!!”
The op-ed even
led to an appearance on MSNBC’s “The
Situation With Tucker Carlson,” in which I was given the chance
to counter Mr. Carlson’s “I could not disagree with you
more” stance on the subject.
Naturally, all
of this also raised questions within our membership on the NLGJA’s “official” position on “outing” and
the many variances of it.
If anything,
we want journalists to examine when and whether it is appropriate
to do so. That’s something that isn’t
done as often as it could be. The Weir
coverage was a perfect example of that.
Many journalists
were covering him by discussing speculation and innuendo — when a case could be made to simply ask him the
question, rather than putting together a story based on stereotypes
that doesn’t answer any questions.
Clearly, the
news media decided on the relevancy of the subject matter. But
they didn’t then consider the next step of the
process: deciding whether to engage in asking the question. If journalists
feel it’s important enough to write about, then isn’t
it important enough to stand behind it, as a journalist, and ask
the question, rather than avoiding it? If a journalist starts the
conversation — and in some cases engages in idle gossip and
innuendo — then they should be willing to deal with asking
the very question they’re discussing.
We must also
keep in mind that the “nobody’s business” argument
is never made when a newspaper does
a feature on an individual and mentions such ubiquitous personal
information as whether the person
is single or dating, married or divorced,
or has children. This is despite the fact that it is recognition
of a perceived sexual orientation
(heterosexual). Yet journalists play
into the shame game and invisibility by avoiding questions about
orientation if the interviewee is possibly
attracted to same-sex individuals.
On a basic level,
the Chronicle column was meant to get journalists — and
the public — talking to each other about instances when it’s
potentially appropriate, and those when it’s potentially not.
And I think we all know that there
will be many gray areas in those discussions.
In the end, if
a journalist deems that it’s relevant to ask
whether someone is LGBT — and, again, I think the recent Weir
coverage is a scenario in which the question was key — then
they should ask. One can’t necessarily predict what the response
will be, but that’s beside the point. (After all, several years
ago, Barbara Walters gave much-speculated-about singer Ricky Martin
a chance to say "I am/I’m not." He chose to basically
say “No comment.”)
Asking relevant questions is part of good reporting. And in this
case, good reporting trumps speculation that yields few, if any,
answers.
We’re not saying you should necessarily ask everyone about
their sexual orientation. The point is that rather than just asking
the question, some journalists have been engaging in innuendo and
promulgating stereotypes when describing someone they assume or suspect
is gay. These journalists have already made a determination (right
or wrong) that the issue is relevant — but they haven’t
gone the extra step to find out the
facts.
