One
of NLGJA’s goals since its inception has been to “strengthen
the identity, respect and status of LGBT journalists in the newsroom
and throughout the practice of journalism.” Part of the process
for attaining that goal is to encourage
journalists to be out in their newsrooms,
even publicly.
At its
heart, this is transparency — the full, accurate and
timely disclosure of information — and it can bring education
and broader professionalism to a workplace
and help dissipate both individual
angst that haunts those in the closet and the potential
for public questions about integrity
or bias.
In June — coincidentally, Gay Pride month — Mike
Needs, public editor of the Akron
(Ohio) Beacon Journal, looked at journalistic
transparency. In response to a query
about whether newspapers should offer
biographical information on reporters, Needs said that it would
be a positive move.
“How much information would I consider appropriate?” Needs
wrote. “Political and religious affiliations, education background,
media experience, active membership in organizations and any involvement
in causes or campaigns that could have any influence on a journalist’s
news judgment.”
“Most journalists are traditionalists who believe that, as
professionals, they can separate their personal lives from their
work,” Needs continued. “In fact, many would find it
insulting to insinuate that personal affiliations could influence
them, or affect their ability to be fair and balanced. For me, it’s
a matter of news people having nothing
to hide and nothing to lose. Openness
fosters integrity. Secrecy kills trust.”
Needs,
in a nutshell, has provided words that so many LGBT journalists
have lived by since NLGJA was born 16 years
ago. Even as a Columbia
Journalism Review article asked “Should Gays Cover Gay Issues?” in
its March/April 1994 issue, many LGBT journalists were already emboldened — indeed,
proud — to openly cover LGBT issues while enlightening colleagues
about fair and accurate coverage. In that CJR article, Justin Gillis,
then-urban affairs editor at The Miami Herald, summed it up: “Being
gay and covering a gay story to me are never inconsistent — never.
Having a gay reporter cover a gay issue
in a sophisticated way is, as a rule,
a good thing. That person brings a skill and an ability
at dialogue with the people being covered,
and sources and knowledge of the community.”
In a
recent San Antonio Current article on journalists who cover politics,
Poynter Institute Senior Faculty Member Robert
Steele offered
insight into transparency, circa 2006: “Journalists have to
be careful due to the wary eye of a
public whose judgment has grown more
critical in recent times. The public perception of a conflict
is powerful and it gets in the way
of our journalistic duty.”
Of course,
we won’t all agree on issues of transparency. In
the 2000 NLGJA-USC survey of Lesbians & Gays in the Newsroom,
92% of respondents were “out” to their colleagues — which,
the report said, is indicative of “the onrush of journalists
who risked going public and … the commitment of the news industry
in many venues to equality of treatment.”What of the other
8%? A diversity of comfort and ideology
exists both within NLGJA and outside
of the organization. Decisions about disclosure can become
highly personal, and none too simple.
In May, a book by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper was published by HarperCollins.
In it, Cooper candidly discusses many aspects of his own personal
and professional experience.
But
last fall, in a profile for New York magazine, Cooper — who
made an unannounced visit to NLGJA’s Headlines & Headliners
event in New York six months earlier — clearly stated why he
doesn’t address questions about his own sexual orientation: “I
just don’t talk about my personal life. The whole thing about
being a reporter is that you’re supposed to be an observer
and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t
want to do anything that threatens
that.”
Whether
or not you agree with Cooper’s assessment, it helps
illustrate the terrain that Poynter’s Steele says we face today.
But since 1990, NLGJA members have been expanding individual comfort
zones regarding how our sexual orientation (or political affiliation,
or religious upbringing, or anything else) relates to our role as
journalists — for the sake of transparency and for our news
organizations’ benefit.
As Needs
pointed out in his column, “Perhaps
there might be a few people who would
use this information as ammunition, citing
it as evidence of bias in coverage
decisions. However, critics already
assume such bias exists, and nothing will change how they view
the
newspaper.”
Transparency.
Full, accurate, timely. Sounds like it’s still
a good building block to me.
