Sorry, But "Outing" Is Morally Correct

[ruggerson]

If you go by the premise that straights and gays should be on equal turf, and that morally there is no difference between the two, then discussing whether someone in the public eye dates men or women, or marries men or women, should not deliberately exclude one group, as if it were some awful secret.

News media routinely dig into the dating lives of every celebrity on earth. They do not ask Julia Roberts or Peter Jenning's permission before they expose who they were having a romantic dinner with the night before. Therefore, logically, they shouldn't treat gays any differently. They don't ask permission before they report on a celebrities marriage, or kids, or divorces, etc. Therefore, logically, they shouldn't treat gays any differently.

The argument will be, well, being gay is still considered a "taboo" in some parts of the country and people should have the right to have that "taboo" remain a secret if they so wish.

Bull. We won't see any progress on this issue until the media treats being straight and being gay as the exact same thing and freely reports on every celebrities love life, without special exemptions due to bigoted attitudes.

NOT "outing" people is the bigotry. By not "outing", you are participitating in the message that there is something wrong with being gay. Something worthy of being "hidden."

If the media is going to continue to be celebrity and gossip driven (the pros and cons of which are another discussion entirely), then they should treat everyone equally. Period.

And after a while, the very term "outing" will disappear and die a much deserved death.

[AVID]

1. yea, but I won't get my skull bashed in if Im dating J Lo

[donco6]

7. Succinctly put.

And correct.

[7th_Sephiroth]

31. you might

J-ho is a psycho

[PassingFair]

72. Unless MarcAnthony catches you... n/t

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

2. When homosexuals are the target of hate,

outing them could be argued to be quite ethically unsound. What if we lived in Nazi Germany, would it still be alright morally to out homosexuals?

[ruggerson]

131. Again, by this logic

The press should withhold whether someone is Jewish if it is reporting in publications which might be seen in localities (like Palestine) which are known to be violent hotbeds of anti semitism.

Wouldn't want to put that person at risk, would we? Better to lie about or omit their heritage entirely.

This whole argument about "protecting" gays by not talking about them publicly simply reeks of homophobia.

[Name removed]

264. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

266. Sarcasm is a pretty effective tool to get a point across at times

And it obviously worked in this instance or you wouldn't feel compelled to run away from the discussion.

[K-W]

320. Only if you try and make this black and white.

Its a matter of specific situations and weighing the consequences of reporting.

It is neither inherently wrong nor right to out someone.

[ruggerson]

328. The only thing that's black and white on this issue

for me is that if the press feels free to discuss a politician or celebrities family life when that person is straight, they should treat a gay individual in the exact same fashion.

There should not be a special rule to render gay people invisible and treat them with an entirely different journalistic standard.

[K-W]

346. That is a false equivelence.

When straight peoples personal lives are an issue it is not because they are straight, it is because there is something interesting happening in the family. It isnt the sexual preference of the person that is exposed it is the supposed actions of the members of the family.

You cant compare that to revealing someones sexual orientation. Obviously this is not a situation of equality. You cant out someone as straight. The assumption is that people are straight until shown to be gay.

You are ignoring the fundemental fact that homosexual people are treated differently. I am actually now curious to know your answer to this question since you claim it is black and white. Would you have defended the morality of outing homosexuals in Nazi Germany?

[ruggerson]

352. So gays in the US are comparable to gays in Nazi Germany?

Is that the point you're trying to make?

My point pertains to now. 2005. And the only reason gay people are treated differently is because we acquiesce to it.

It is wrong that it is assumed that you are straight until proven otherwise. We shouldn't assume anything about anybody. People are all individuals and should be treated with dignity, respect and equality, not condescended to as if they were less than the majority.

Full equality is a mindset. And when you start living that mindset, it becomes really apparent that the media should no longer be allowed to perpetuate a double standard on this issue.

[K-W]

353. Clearly I never said that. If you are going to try and smear me

this conversation is over.

You stated that black and white outing someone is morally ok. I asked you if you thought that was the case in Nazi Germany. At no point did I imply, infer, or in any way say that the US was anything like Nazi Germany.

I am simply establishing that there could certainly be situations where outing someone was morally wrong to show that it is not in fact black and white, and because you seemed to be arguing it was I presented a more severe situation for you to apply your logic to. Is or isnt the morality of such an action dependent on the consequences?

[ruggerson]

356. But this is not Nazi Germany

And anyone who brings Nazis or Hitler into a discussion that has nothing to do with either usually does it as a red herring. And if you think i was "smearing" you by merelay asking you a question about your reference to Nazi Germany, you are sorely mistaken.

As to the logic part of your question, I assume we can come up with an extreme instance whicn pretty much invalidates any blanket statement.

Having said that, I stand by the idea that allowing the press to maintain a double standard on this issue only reinforces homophobia and plays right into the hands of the religious right.

You wonder why wedge issues work? It's because of issues like this. We LET THEM WORK. Matter of fact, we participate in them.

[mondo joe]

357. If you weren't likening the outcome to outing in Nazi Germany what WAS the

point of the comparison?

Hey there was a news story about Joe Lieberman's religious convictions. Would that have been run in Nazi Germany?

Maybe you gave a child a time out for hitting her sibling - would you have given her a time out if she had leukemia and only a day more to live?


You can take ANY action and find a situation in which it would be indefensible. But that's not generally the starting point or guideline for handling the situation.

[mondo joe]

354. But this isn't Nazi Germany. False equivalence indeed.

Homosexuals are treated differently. So are a lot of other groups.

But that doesn't mean the news media should collaborate on a policy of secrecy. I don't believe the press should behave in pursuit of a political or social agenda. And I don't believe it should set different standards of reporting for different groups. It should accurately and dispassionately report the news.

[K-W]

355. I never said it was, so... calm down...

I never postulated an equivelence.

I was testing someones stated moral beliefs with a more severe ethical dillema. I hope I dont have to explain to you why Nazi germany is a good source of severe ethical situations?

All I am pointing out is that the morality of an action is based on the specific situation, that it isnt black and white and outings aren't all inherently morally defensible.

[barackmyworld]

3. It's different when one group is socially condemned

Ideally, people shouldn't care about sexual orientation, but they DO. Going by the "premise" that people are equal can't make up for the fact that right now, gay relationsips are not considered equal to straight relationships. If people don't want to be harassed, degraded, etc. in public, they should have a right to be protected from these things by keeping their sexual orientation secret. When society stops being a bunch of bigots, then it won't matter.

[ruggerson]

11. It's not just a premise

it's the acceptance of a world view, a way of living. The press is participating, and perpetuating, homophobia by conducting themselves as if there was something wrong with being gay. While I agree with you that this won't matter when people stop being bigots, in the meantime, do you live your life according to the bigot's rules, or according to what is right?

The media IS the message in this case, and can choose to lead on this issue, and report reality, or choose to cave in to the bigot's world and hide reality.

[barackmyworld]

15. You should take the path that causes the least harm

There is a difference between protecting people because of demostrated violence against their group, and saying there is "something wrong." The view of "it's ok to be gay" is not as effective in protecting people as "It's ok to be gay but I recognize that not everyone thinks that now." There is a middle ground.

[ruggerson]

21. I don't believe in different standards

One set of standards for straights and one for gays.

I don't accept that and I think that by participating in it, we are furthering the religious rightwing agenda.

[ultraist]

80. That's black and white thinking. There ARE gray areas.

It's NOT a double standard if one group may well face danger or death while the other does not.

If there is NO EQUAL ground, the standards are different. IF there is equal ground, ONLY THEN can it be considered double standards.

Using the double standard premise for an UNequal playing field is parallel to the "reverse discrimination" argument.

[mondo joe]

103. So Anderson Cooper will be executed if he's outed?

OUting a celebrity will cause their death?

[ultraist]

118. Outting some celebrities may put them more in harms way

What's up with the extremist, black and white, fundie like, mode of thinking?

Each sitation is DIFFERENT and should be considered from an ethical standpoint.

[mondo joe]

120. So any news about any celebrity that might have a negative consequence

for them should be censored?

Oh my.

[tx_dem41]

122. I hand my recently-bestowed Red Herring award off to you...

Mondo Joe....Bravo! You earned it! No, you really did!

[ultraist]

130. Quit twisting words

I didn't say that. READ THE CODE OF ETHICS handbook for PROFESSIONAL Journalists. They are NOT to engage in advocacy, but to REPORT THE NEWS AND they should "MINIMIZE HARM." In other words, EACH SITUATION IS UNIQUE and the HARM DONE should be factored in when they report.

What is UP with this BLACK AND WHITE approach here? Ethical reasoning is NOT black and white.

[mondo joe]

134. So by "minimize harm" you mean they should

not report things that may have a negative impact on celebrities?

Please describe the standard you think they should use when it comes to reporting news that a celebrity might very much wish was left private.

Funny - you accusing others of "black and white" thinking while being so absolute that the press shouldn't out people.

[ultraist]

137. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand their code: "minimize harm"

Your BLACK AND WHITE APPROACH is limiting your scope.

[mondo joe]

163. Then please elaborate on how you think "minimize harm"

would play out regarding news that a celebrity might find hurtful OTHER than being outed.

[ultraist]

177. "Minimize harm" must be applied on a case by case basis

It is not a black and white rule that is applied the "same" to everyone in every situation. That is concrete thinking. It's a bit more complex and abstract than that.

Gray areas need to be considered. Omitting gray areas is dishonest.

Demanding some absolute rule, that YOU MADE UP, is fallacious reasoning. This is precisely what the fundies do. They twist bible quotes and derive absolute "moral rules" and demand they are applied to all with NO REGARD for ethical or logically reasoning.

It is NOT the job of journalists to engage in "advocacy" such as a drum beat cause of "outting all Gay celebrities."

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ultraist]

204. READ THE OP that you are defending

Direct quotes for the OP:

"NOT "outing" people is the bigotry. By not "outing", you are participitating in the message that there is something wrong with being gay. Something worthy of being "hidden."

"'Outing' is moral."

Is too difficult for you to understand the concept of using ethical principles to logically reason out on a case by case basis?

Is EVERY PERSON IN EVERY SITUATION the SAME? Should ALL SITUATIONS BE treated with ONE MORAL RULE that some blogger made up?

I have not proposed using my political beliefs. I have proposed using a set of ethics and LOGICALLY REASONING OUT each situation.

YOU ARE PROPOSING YOUR POLITICAL BELIEF, that Gay celebrities should be outted and APPLYING IT TO JOURNALISTS who should NOT engage in drum beat causes.That would be advocacy.

You obviously have not read my other posts on this or have a difficult time with reading comprehension and basic logic.

Here is a list of fallacious arguments for you:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#expert

[mondo joe]

205. I'm only defending my own position, silly thing.

"YOU ARE PROPOSING YOUR POLITICAL BELIEF, that Gay celebrities should be outted and APPLYING IT TO JOURNALISTS who should NOT engage in drum beat causes.That would be advocacy. "

To the contrary, I'm suggesting they simply report the facts, accurately and disapassionately.

You're arguing for a FOX news approach, in which political agenda shapes the content and tone of the news.

[ultraist]

212. So you retract your defense of the OP to "OUT ALL GAY celebrities?

What are you proposing? Because that IS what the OP proposes.

[mondo joe]

216. I never commented on OP's post. You're making things up again.

I stand by my own statements in my own posts.

I haven't commented on OP's post.

But I do wish you'd stop lying.

[ultraist]

220. LMAO! So you DON'T agree with the OP? What is your position?

What have you been commenting on in this thread if you are not discussing the TOPIC, the OP?

[mondo joe]

225. My positions are the ones I've stated. Not that anyone else has stated.

I'm not concerned with which other posts do or don't agree in content or tone with mine.

[tx_dem41]

230. Actually, it appears that...

Mondo Joe is really just for the status quo of journalism if you scroll down the thread. Kind of a let down, actually.

[ruggerson]

221. Actually, here is what I posted:

"If the media is going to continue to be celebrity and gossip driven (the pros and cons of which are another discussion entirely), then they should treat everyone equally. Period."

And, again. If the media is going to report on a public figure's family life (whether a politician or a celebrity), they should not give "special" treatment to a gay person's family life. Doing so merely means the press is becoming an ADVOCATE of the religious rightwing point of view that there is something wrong with being gay.

I am firmly against double standards. If it's ok to tell us about politican Bill Patterson's wife and kids, then it's ok to tell us about politician Bill Patterson's life partner.

[mondo joe]

210. Presenting a list of fallacies doesn't demonstrate that I've committed one

If you want to accuse me of a fallacy you ought to cite the particular instance, and the particular fallacy.

[mondo joe]

45. I don't think that's a legitimate guideline for journalism.

And I don't think journalism should be in the business of protecting people either.

[ultraist]

133. And YOU are not a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST

Professional JOURNALISTS DO HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS.

Are you a member of ANY professional organization?

[mondo joe]

194. "take the path that causes the least harm" doesn't mean lie

or don't report facts because there may be a negative outcome for the subject of the story.

Hey maybe that's why so much of Bush's antics go unreported in the mainstream - some folks are following your idea of the code of ethics.

[ultraist]

208. You are TWISTING the ethical principle of "minimize harm"

OBVIOUSLY you don't understand it.

Consider that principle for a doctor. Should a doctor use the least invasive procedure to heal a medical problem or should a doctor butcher the person in order to achieve the same goal?

The job of a journalist is to REPORT THE NEWS in an UNbiased, fair fashion. It is NOT to advocate for some political, religious, or moral cause of some blogger.

[mondo joe]

282. But you're the one asking them to advocate for a cause

I'm asking them to report the news is an unbiased fashion.

You are asking them to report some news, but keep others news secret to favor your bias.

[tx_dem41]

25. I "live my life" by what is right which means that discussion of one's

private matters (hetero or gay) is considered at the very least to be gossip. Thus, I don't discuss it nor do I pay attention to it.

[ruggerson]

30. So you don' think the media

should discuss whether politician A is married and/or has kids? And you don't think the media should discuss whether celebrity B is married or single and/or has kids?

None of it should ever be publicly discussed on the airwaves or in print?

[tx_dem41]

39. The media is free to report what they want to. We have a First

Amendment that protects that right. I am also free to discard or ignore such reporting and not force it to reform my moral standards as the OP suggests it should.

[mondo joe]

32. That's a good reason to not seek celebrity.

But those who do seek celebrity know the risk they are taking.

[ruggerson]

34. Exactly

And not even so much a "risk", as that there shouldn't be two standards of reporting.

Homosexuality shouldn't be treated any differently than heterosexuality.

[tx_dem41]

40. We agree on that, as I stated in an earlier post.

Now, are you ready to have that other discussion, that you yourself stated in an earlier post?

[ruggerson]

65. Sure, but it really does not have much direct bearing on the

question of double standards.

[tx_dem41]

68. It does if you don't agree with either standard. n/t

[ruggerson]

73. Talking and writing about the lives

of public figures is centuries old. If you just look at American history, the public was gossiping about the Founding Fathers (and mothers) two hundred and thirty years ago. They were examining the lives of New York society with a microscope during the heydays of the Vanderbilts and the Whitneys in the late 1800's.

This is nothing new. People are interested in public figures and the press tries to satisfy that curiosity. I'm not stating an ethical opinion about it one way or the other, but it ain't gonna stop any time soon.

[tx_dem41]

74. Slavery was centuries old as well. It didn't make it right.

By your logic, you might think it was right, which I'm sure is not what you are trying to say.

I'll stick with my statement that I don't agree with either standard.

[ruggerson]

75. Boy, making a comparison between slavery and tabloid journalism

is either incredibly offensive or incredibly sad.

I think I'll stick with the former.

:)

[tx_dem41]

76. But in this case, your logic defended slavery (which I know you ...

didn't mean to do). In my case I was defending the civil rights movement. This time, I'll stick with the latter. Your move? :)

[ruggerson]

84. I wasn't defending anything

I was pointing out that you're railing against tabloid journalism which has been around for centuries.

And I agree that just the fact that it's been around for centuries does not necessarily make it a good thing. I'm just pointing out that this is not something new in our society.

As far as whether tabloid journalism is good or bad, I think for those who have, or are seeking to have, avenues by which to exert power or change over our society, that it can actually serve a useful purpose.

If we had someone running for President and they treated their spouses like crap and were on their fourth marriages due to "emotional cruelty" and had not been responsible for their kid's welfare and were general assholes in their personal life, I would like to be armed with this knowledge when I go to the voting booth.

You wouldn't?

[tx_dem41]

89. Why are you seeming to equate homosexuality with negative things...

like "emotional cruelty" and treating their spouses and kids like crap????

[ruggerson]

90. I wasn't doing that at all

And again a red herring. Is that the only way you can discuss these issues?

The salient point (in the discussion YOU wanted) is whether it's legitimate or not for a free press to disclose and report on a politician's or celebrity's personal life.

If a politician is seeking an important post, whether he/she is a good (or bad) person in their personal conduct is certainly a consideration.

Now, answer the question in my previous post.

If a politician has abused his/her spouse, is on their umpteenth marriage, has been accused of "emotional cruelty" by ex-spouses and has not cared adequately for his/her children, you don't think this is legitimate news when that person is asking to be elected to a position of trust and power?

[tx_dem41]

94. That's an easy one...

Divorces and the reasons for divorces are a matter of public record. Its fair game at that point.

How you consider such information is a personal choice.

[ruggerson]

95. Divorce records are often sealed

And may not contain any of the particular details the public might need to process their decision.

Nice try, though. :)

[tx_dem41]

98. Most are not sealed.

I respect the reasons that they might be sealed (at the request of the afflicted spouse or kids). You don't respect that privacy, though as shown in the OP.

[ruggerson]

104. Not if they're seeking

to have power to change laws which affect each and everyone of us, no.

When you seek that kind of power you have to withstand the scrutiny.

And legitimate scrutiny, it is.

[tx_dem41]

107. And, then, let the judicial process determine that.

We seem to be in agreement...possibly?

OK, I'm fantasizing. :)

[mondo joe]

97. Do you consider all public record on celebrities legitimate news?

[tx_dem41]

102. Public record, as rigidly established and attested in a judicial process..

I would consider "news"...not necessarily "legitimate".

[mondo joe]

106. So if public record of celebrities is not, in your opinion,

legitimate news why distinguish it from non-public records in your moral assessment?

[tx_dem41]

113. You're making the mistake that I believe that all news...

is moral.

[ultraist]

67. I agree! It's NOT EQUALLY safe for Gays, there is NO equal ground

at this stage of the game.

I think our focus should be working at making the environment safer for Gays which will encourage outting rather than witch hunting them and forcing people out who may not feel safe.

Allow people to make their own decisions on this.

[tx_dem41]

70. I agree with your emphasis

Hey, Ultraist!

:hi:

[ultraist]

77. I think the safety component is important to consider

:hi:

We protect the identity of certain victims so that they do not have to have shame and condemnation heaped on them by society. It's their decision to out themselves.

Gays also have been victimized by our society and it should be their decision to out themselves.

In certain cases of hypocrisy, there may be other factors to consider because these individuals have actively worked against Gay rights.

That's why throwing down one absolute moral to apply across the board is reckless. Absolutism defies ethical reasoning.

Consider, "it's immoral to kill." It's not immoral to kill in self defense or in defense of a loved one. I would consider it immoral if I stood by and watched someone murder and didn't intervene.

[tx_dem41]

78. I would agree with that. Sadly, the OP did not make that ..

distinction. Thus, my opposition to it.

[ultraist]

82. Calling double standards on an UNequal playing field is ILLOGICAL

It's the "Reverse Discrimination" argument applied to Gays.

[mondo joe]

85. It's not the job of the press to equal the playing field or base

what they publish on a political idealogy.

[ultraist]

88. You totally missed the point

You are calling "double standards" on an UNequal playing field. That is illogical. IF Gays were on an equal playing field and different standards were applied, THEN you could call double standards.

Applying absolutism is concrete thinking. There are gray areas. IN SOME CASES, it may be appropriate to out someone. But to say, "outting is morally correct" is a black and white approach.

Sure, it would be great if all Gays were out. Yes, that would help to alleviate people's irrational fear of Gays and would lift the veil of shame, BUT, it is NOT ok to have sacrificial lambs in order to achieve this. There are more appropriate and safer ways to gain a level playing field.

I don't blindly subscribe to a Utilitarian philosophy in that the "greater good" outweighs EVERYTHING. We are talking about human LIVES.

How many Gay lives should be sacrificed to acheive the goal of outting everyone?

[mondo joe]

91. You're applying an idealogical standard to the press

The press isn't - shouldn't be - concerned with how level the playing field is.

[ultraist]

101. Wrong again. The press SHOULD and DO have ethical standards

as do most professions. The press just doesn't live up to them.

For instance, the AMA, the APA, and the National Association of Social Workers Association, provides a written set of ethical codes and standards for their professionals to adhere to. In the NASW code of ethics, "respect for self determination" and "respect for human dignity" are two of the main standards.

It is not always ethical to FORCE something on someone.

[mondo joe]

108. Ethical standards do not include pursuit of a political agenda

It's really quite appalling that you think the press should choose some public individuals to support and others to report on.

Quite appalling indeed.

[ultraist]

115. Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethical Conduct

http://spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Should Journalists THROW OUT ALL ETHICS? Should they NOT protect their sources? Should they publish photos of children who have been raped? Should they reveal National Security secrets that have been leaked to them?

Sorry, but the Profesion of Journalism DOES and HAS a Code of ETHICAL Standards.

I think, as I'm sure many journalists do, that applying a broad stroke, black and white type thinking, moral absolute, to an oppressed group, is UNETHICAL.

It has NOTHING to do with Politics, it's about ethics.

[mondo joe]

117. It's unethical to use the press to "level the playing field"

I don't think journalists should throw out ANY ethics.

And it's quite unethical for journalists to use the press in pursuit of a political idealogy the way you want them to.

[ultraist]

140. I didn't say the press SHOULD level the playing field

I said that when they make an ETHICAL decision with regard to their work, they SHOULD HONESTLY factor in all variables.

YOU are stating the press SHOULD NOT BE HONEST when they consider the circumstances and IGNORE the fact that harm is an issue.

Why are you advocating for MORE DISHONESTY from the press?

[mondo joe]

164. To the contrary, I expect them to be honest, not political

You, however, are arguing that they advocate for a particular political ideology, including keeping secrets for some people.

[ultraist]

178. No, you are suggesting they engage in a drum beat cause: OUT ALL GAYS

That is advocacy. Journalists should not be advocates, as FOX news is, they should REPORT THE NEWS and NOT PROMOTE SOME MADE UP MORAL RULE OR IDEOLOGY.

READ their CODE OF ETHICS and reason it out withOUT using fallacious arguments.

[ruggerson]

184. Actually, by making gays invisible

they ARE being advocates. Of the religious rightwing cause.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ultraist]

196. You are giving liberals a bad name by using fallacious arguments

That's what the FUNDIES do. PIGS like Rush and Bush.

[mondo joe]

200. I'm waiting for you to demonstrate the fallacy I'm accused of

Please cite it, and the particular fallacy (there are online guides if you need help).

[ultraist]

217. I'm waiting for you to state your argument since you have backpeddled

on your position, saying that you DO NOT agree with the OP. That "ALL GAY celebrities SHOULD BE OUTED."

You have YET to clearly state WHAT you believe, let alone back it up with a logical argument.

TWISTING people's words is ONE example of fallacious reasoning, you've done this in numerous posts.

[mondo joe]

219. If I have yet to say what I believe how can you be so opposed?

If I've committed a fallacy point it out and cite the specific fallacy.

Otherwise stop lying.

[ruggerson]

99. Exactly

the folks here who protest that this is ideology triumphing over safety should be very concerned if a free press is selectively choosing what it considers to be appropriate news to filter through to the public based on IT'S ideology.

[ultraist]

110. ALL Professions, including Journalism have Ethical Standards

Is it OK for a journalist to OUT a CIA agent and put their life at risk? This is not only ILLLEGAL, it is UNETHICAL. Is it OK for a Journalist TO LIE and fabricate a story? NO. There are ETHICAL STANDARDS that should be followed.

JOURNALISTS SHOULD AND DO HAVE SOME ETHICAL STANDARDS. That is what is being argued here, WHAT ETHICAL STANDARDS SHOULD THE PRESS HAVE WITH REGARD TO OUTTING GAYS?

[mondo joe]

112. It's illegal to out a CIA agent.

Ethical standards should not include use of the press by journalists to pursue a political agenda.

[ruggerson]

123. By your reasoning

The press should withhold whether someone is Jewish if it is reporting in publications which might be seen in localities (like Palestine) which are known to be violent hotbeds of anti semitism.

Wouldn't want to put that person at risk, would we? Better to lie about or omit their heritage entirely.

This whole argument about "protecting" gays by not talking about them publicly simply reeks of homophobia.

[mondo joe]

126. By Ultraist's reasoning Fox news may be justified

in its far right slant because it it is trying to level what it perceives to be an unlevel playing field.

[ultraist]

136. I'm done with this fundie like approach,

Please educate yourself on Journalists Code of Ethics Standards.

The only problem here is that MANY Journalists don't follow them.

Case in point: Fox news does not exhibit Intellectual honesty. They "ADVOCATE" rather than report the news. They FAIL to adhere to the "minimize harm" ethic.

And YOU are proposing that journalists should "ADVOCATE" YOUR black and white fundish moral rule.

[ruggerson]

138. No, he's proposing that journalists tell the truth

instead of treating the simple fact of someone being gay as a shocking disease or something so horrible as to warrant being hidden.

That's what he's advocating.

[tx_dem41]

141. No....he's definitely not advocating the "truth".

He is advocating gossip. Gossip based on "club sightings" and the such. How is that the truth to anyone other than Faux news?

[ruggerson]

145. He's talking about the broad subject at hand

not just part of one story on one gay news anchor.

[tx_dem41]

148. Wrong thread...this isn't the Anderson Cooper thread...

although I have been confusing the two as well, so I understand.

A question: If you were a journalist and the subject was "in the closet", or so you think....how would you prove that he or she was gay? Proof enough where you would publish it or broadcast it?

[ruggerson]

150. probably the same way you wuold

if the subject was straight. There seems to be no problem when reporting that a single politician is dating someone of the opposite sex. Or reporting that a celebrity went on a romantic ocean cruise with their opposite sex love interest. Whatever the standard of proof is there should also be the standard of proof for reporting on gay folks.

[tx_dem41]

153. Well, I have no idea on how one would report on

a heterosexual "in the closet" either, although you seem to understand the standard. How would that work? How would you know its a "love interest" if they are "in the closet"? What makes an ocean cruise "romantic"?

[ultraist]

142. No, he is advocating a witch hunt against all Gay celebrities

With TOTAL DISREGARD for the fact that Gays are victimized by our society. Gays DO get discriminated against, beaten, and KILLED for being Gay.

To DENY THIS FACT while considering the PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST CODE OF ETHICS, "MINIMIZE HARM" principle, IS DISHONEST AND RECKLESS.

Are you a member of any professional organization that has a Code of Ethics? Do you have any experience, education or background on this?

I don't think you do. I don't think you have read the Professional Journalist Code of Ethics, YET, you are making judgements about it.

The other ethical code being violated is that Journalists are NOT TO ADVOCATE but to report the news. He is saying Journalists SHOULD ADVOCATE by outting all celebrities! That is a drumbeat cause (ie advocacy).

[ruggerson]

146. You still haven't answered my question

about reporting on Jews in publications which will be seen in viciously anti-semitic parts of the world.

Do we make Jews invisible too? Is that part of this code of ethics you are trumpeting?

[ultraist]

151. Twist away! Respecting privacy is not "making invisible"

IF it is not relevant to the story, why would someone's religion be reported?

Should all articles read, "Dan Rather, the Catholic, heterosexual..."

IF a Jewish person asked not to have their religion noted because it would put them in jeapordy, yes, I think the Journalist should respect that in some cases, JUST AS THEY HAVE ANONYMOUS SOURCES.

What do you think the whole concept behind "protecting a source" is about?

If Journalists were totally reckless and unnecessarily put people at risk, NO ONE would come forward and give journalists stories.

It's a CASE BY CASE situation. Applying ethical codes requires to consider each case HONESTLY.

Placing ONE ABSOLUTE RULE FOR ALL CASES IS VERY FUNDIE LIKE. Bush thinking at it's worst. BLACK AND WHITE.

[ruggerson]

166. We have a different standard for privacy

if one is a public figure, they have to expect that certain parts of their life are going to be examined. Certainly their race, gender, marital status, religious and ethnic affiliation are not out of bounds. Neither is their sexual orientation. It is JUST AS ROUTINE a subject as the other "personal" attributes. Would you be this adamant if a journalist was expounding on a politician being blue eyed or red haired? Of course not. And I never hear anyone objecting to news items which start off: "Jesse Jones, congressman from the 1rst district, married with three kids...". So why get bent out of shape if it reads: "Jesse Jones, congressman from the 1rst district, lives with his life partner of eight years and their dalmation, Butch."

[tx_dem41]

173. Actually, its illegal for a private entity to

require the identification of one's religious affiliation. I believe it is illegal for marital status as well. I know when we interview people these are taboo.

[ruggerson]

180. We're talking about the press

Are you seriously taking the position that the press does not have the right to report on the marital status of public figures?

[tx_dem41]

182. No...please continue your argument

I was just interjecting a piece of information. Silly me.

[mondo joe]

167. But there are plenty of stories about the personal lives of celebrities

Stop making victims of gays. We don't need it.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

168. How would one prove a person who is "in the closet" is gay?

I'm not sure how that works.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

187. If my argument is fallacious demonstrate it.

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

313. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

327. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

335. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

347. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

79. Gay celebrities are not victims

We protect the identities of some victims of some crimes precisely because they did not choose to become publig figures, but instead are the objects of criminal behavior.

Celebrities, however, choose to put their personal lives on the block.

[tx_dem41]

81. "On the block"....

heads get chopped off when they are put on blocks, no? A very interesting choice of words.

[mondo joe]

83. Although you don't believe in personal responsibility or choice,

the fact remains that if a person chooses to put themselves at risk, that IS their choice.

[tx_dem41]

96. So being a homosexual is putting oneself "at risk".

Another VERRRY interesting choice of words, Mondo. I think I'm starting to see (your) light.

[mondo joe]

100. No, choosing a life of celebrity puts ones privacy at risk.

I can try to break things down into yet simpler terms if you choose.

[tx_dem41]

105. No...you have been quite simple.

No reason to get simpler. We just disagree on this point.

[mondo joe]

109. You disagree that people realize by pursuing personal

celebrity they will be putting their privacy at risk?

[tx_dem41]

111. I don't believe they waive their right to privacy due to a choice of

careers. But, you don't believe in a right to privacy, so obviously we disagree on that. Any other questions?

[mondo joe]

114. That wasn't what I asked.

I didn't ask if people choose to waive privacy due to a choice of careers.

I asked if you think people realize by pursuing personal celebrity they are putting their privacy at risk.

[tx_dem41]

116. Okay, I'll swing at that curve....

Of course, they put their privacy at risk, much like people who unlock their doors or dress in a "provocative" manner. That doesn't make an offense or action perpetrated on them morally okay.

Heck, I thought YOU were the one pushing personal responsibility! Why am I "forced" to defend it?

[mondo joe]

119. I didn't ask you want you think is moral.

I'm not really concerned with what you think is moral, any more than I am with what Jerry Falwell thinks is moral.

But thanks for finally admitting celebrities have opted to put their privacy at risk.

[tx_dem41]

121. Time for me to ask a question...

does putting oneself at risk mean its right to take advantage of it?

[mondo joe]

124. The "right" is not caused by the choice to put oneself at risk.

You misunderstand cause and effect.

If you fail to take simple precautions, you place yourself at risk for robbery. You may well face the consequences of how you'vfe handled your personal responsibility.

A thief who takes advantage of your risk does not have the RIGHT to do so, however.

In the case of celebrities who knowingly put their privacy at risk, they too may face the consequences of the risk they've taken.

The press, however, does have the right to publish stories about their personal lives because they have the right as guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

[tx_dem41]

128. Ah, but it's you that misunderstands my use of the term "right"....

but you've had a blind spot for that during this whole thread.

[mondo joe]

129. If you want to use your own personal definition of words

rather than the conventional, it would be helpful for you to say so upfront.

[tx_dem41]

132. Geez, I didn't realize that there was only one definition of the word...

..."right".

That silly Merriam-Webster guy. :eyes:

http://m-w.com

Just type in "right" and select "noun".

[mondo joe]

135. Gee, you didn't mean "of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of

"of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the heart and on which the hand is stronger in most people"?

As usual, you prefer to play games than have an honest dialogue.

If you want to discuss rights but wish to disassociate it from the most conventional use (as in legal right), it would be beneficial to the dialogue to say so upfront.

[tx_dem41]

139. Well, since you missed the obvious....

I'll take a little time to cut and paste....

"qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval"

You know, it was the FIRST definition. People often do skip over the first thing in a list though, for some reason.

[ultraist]

87. Gays ARE victimized by our society

They DO NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. There ARE Hate Crimes. There is discrimination against Gays. "Equal Protection" has not been applied to Gays. They are NOT ALLOWED to marry.

Rather than witch hunt a discriminated group, why not work at creating a safer environment. DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS, TAKE DOWN HATE GROUPS, CALL OUT COMPANIES THAT USE THE "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" policies.

You are victimizing the victim rather than condemning the oppressors.

[mondo joe]

93. Who's calling for a witch hunt?

Gays are NOT victims in the way that rape victims are.

If a gay person decides to pursue personal celebrity they assume certain risks. Don't insult them by acting as if they are too stupid or weak to know what they are doing.

[ultraist]

125. Outting ALL celebrities is a witch hunt and/or "advocacy"

It violates the Professional Code of Journalistic Ethics. Journalists are NOT advocates, they are supposed to report the NEWS AND are expected to "Minimize Harm."

http://spj.org/ethics_code.asp

"Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context"

Noun 1. advocacy - active support; especially the act of pleading or arguing for something
support - aiding the cause or policy or interests of; "the president no longer had the support of his own party"; "they developed a scheme of mutual support"
drumbeat - a vehement and vociferous advocacy of a cause; "the warmongers kept up their drumbeat on Iraq"
urging - the act of earnestly supporting or encouraging


Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

[mondo joe]

127. No it doesn't.

Gays are not victims of sex crimes, nor are they criminal suspects.

And as a gay man I find your position that gays are de facto victims insulting.

[ultraist]

143. You don't believe that homophobia, discrimination, and hate crimes exist?

You don't think that the Gay community is a marginalized and oppressed group?

Again, quit twisting my words, I never said they are victims of sex crimes.

You are being extremely dishonest in this discussion. What else are you being dishonest about in this discussion? hmmm...

There is no point in continuing to discuss this with someone who LIES about what a post says.

[mondo joe]

169. Being marginalized is not an excuse for jornalists abandoning

honesty and ethics to advocate for a political agenda.

I'm well aware of what gays face, and we don't need to be made victims by you.

[tx_dem41]

170. How would a journalist go about proving a person in the closet

is gay?

[ultraist]

181. I'm making Gays victims by stating homophobia and hate crimes exist?

That is such a dishonest statement! WHY are you trying to SILENCE the truth? Does NOT SPEAKING THE TRUTH make it go away?

[tx_dem41]

147. Can a person be awarded two Red Herring awards in a single hour??

This one must be unprecedented! Bravo, again.

[ultraist]

161. "Outing all gay celebrities is moral" violates several ethics

From the Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:

>Avoid Pandering to Lurid Curiosity
>Minimize Harm
>Do not Advocate (engage in a drumbeat cause---such as "out all celebrity gays.")

Apparently, a couple here have confused society's double standard of treatment of Gays vs. straights, with Journalists code of ethics. This is flawed and convoluted.

When a black and white moral absolute is demanded, there is no room left for ethical reasoning. This is precisely what the fundies do:
"Gays are sinners."
"Premarital sex is wrong."
"Abortion is murder."

"Outting Gays is moral" is a narrow, black and white construct. It is a dishonest approach as it ignores all gray areas.

"Moral rules" are for fools.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

197. And yet "silence the truth" is precisely what you expect the press to do.

What's the principle here - no news that negatively impacts members of oppressed groups?

[ultraist]

290. No, I did NOT say the press should "silence the truth."

Again, you are exagerating what I said. Extrapolating even.

I do NOT agree with "don't ask, don't tell" policies imposed by an institutions/orgs, whether they are geared towards employees or subjects of articles.

I also do NOT agree with a broad, black and white "moral rule" that states, "Outing is moral." Because SOMETIMES, in SOME cases, it is NOT moral. Each situation should be logically reasoned out. Journalists SHOULD adhere to some code of ethics. Unfortunately, they don't more often than they do. What IF a celebrity was being stalked by a Hate Group and some reporter outted them for the sake of "lurid curiosity." Would that be moral?

I understand that due to a hostile environment some Gays choose not to be out. BUT, by being closeted, it perpetuates the irrational fears and misconceptions about Gays. Mindful of that, Gays should be granted the same respect for "self determination" and dignity as all other people are. Applying the "greater good" principle is not worth risking LIVES over. It's a personal, private decision and meddling in others' lives, dictating to them WHEN, HOW, and WHERE they should OUT themselves is INTRUSIVE in most instances.

I still don't really understand where you stand on the OP. You seem to be saying you disagree with it but it's not clear to me.

[mondo joe]

298. What if a celeb is being stalked by a hate group?

Then what difference would it make? They're already being stalked which is illegal.

Oh no - they'd better not out Anderson Cooper - someone might murder him for being gay!

[tx_dem41]

306. You must be incensed when the press doesn't publish rape victims'

names! I mean, even if the victims request anonymity the press should publish it correct? There's nothing wrong with being a rape victim, so ignore their request and publish away!

That should be part of your crusade as well. Just a suggestion.

[mondo joe]

308. Not at all. Rape victims are VICTIMS. They never sought personal

celebrity.

Very lame, Texas guy. Very lame.

[tx_dem41]

311. Not lame at all.

You're all over the map on the motivation of this little crusade. One point, you are saying because it puts being gay in a bad light, like its something wrong. Another moment, its because the press has a "right" to do it. You really need to focus on one point and stick to it Mondo. Heck, you've had 9 hours or so to focus on it. Keep trying though. I'll be pulling for you.

[jdj]

86. the way to make it safe for gays is to out the repukes

who get elected on hating us.

not protect them anymore, hoist them by their own petard.

they do not hold back outing dems if given half a chance, but they are at a disadvantage in that unlike them, so many dems are already out.

[ultraist]

92. I agree!

Part of creating a SAFE and level playing field is to take down ANTI-Gay people and groups.

But the OP makes the black and white "rule" that "outting Gays is morally correct."

I think we should call out all HATE spreaders and knock them off of their righteous pedestals.

But, NOT ALL celebrities are Hate spreaders. I think we should allow them their dignity to make their own decisions. It's respect for self determination.

[Wat_Tyler]

4. Not outing people is often a consideration of how much

you might fuck up that person's life. Bear that in mind.

[murray hill farm]

5. There should be somethings, though.

that a person decides on their own if and when they will share parts of who they are to the world...and this right to decide this based on their own time table should be respected. If, for example, i should become ill..and need treatment for cancer...and i choose not to reveal this until i am ready to friends and family..then am i showing an embarrassment about who i am? no..it is not a bigoted act in regard to victims of cancer...but a personal decision to wait and see how it goes..and to decide when and if i will tell the world. If i were not ready to come out, if i were gay...i would very much want others to respect my decision too..and to trust that this would be my right to decide this for myself.

[donco6]

6. A little simplistic, don't you think?

Are you talking just about celebrities, or anyone who goes to dinner? Should the name/sex/background of anyone's date be fair game fodder for the local paper?

[tx_dem41]

8. Okay....will you agree that "gossiping" over silly or private matters...

is politically incorrect?

[ruggerson]

12. Sure. But if there wasn't an appetite for it

people wouldn't buy the national enquirer and there wouldn't be a Page Six type column in nearly every newspaper in the country.

Oh, and you wouldn't have E or a whole slew of other cable channels.

[tx_dem41]

14. So now you are saying that the "appetite" of the media consumer ...

should determine what is moral and what is immoral? Wow, I don't know how to respond to that.

[ruggerson]

17. Nope

What I'm saying is that IF you are going to have a culture where reporting on celebrities exists (again, another discussion entirely), then you can't have two separate standards of reporting on two different groups. By doing so, you are participating in the rightwing agenda of dividing those groups.

One standard for everyone. Period.

[barackmyworld]

18. There are not only two standards of reporting

It's not "you're with us or against us" here. You can make a decision based on safety and privacy.

[tx_dem41]

22. Well, I guess I can't overlook the "other discussion" entirely.

I see your point, but since I don't agree with the premise, I can't agree with your standard...respectfully, of course.

[forgethell]

9. It's wrong

because it harms people, and is meant to harm people. And to be honest, I don't care to know about the sex lives of straight celebrities, either.

It is a tactic worthy of fascists, not progressives.

Hope you can sleep at night.

[Chomp]

10. The problem though ...

...is that there is something fundamentally illiberal about outing, whatever the theoretical nicities and philosophical justifications one comes up with. As a liberal, I feel I must respect that some people do not wish to reveal their sexual preferences.

So if an individual looks me in the eye and says "I do not want my sexuality revealed" - should a good liberal not respect this? Isn't there a "freedom of expression" thing going on too?

On the other hand, outing is a fully justified weapon against hypocricy, and I would advocate it in the case of two-faced public figures. In this instance they are making it an issue and are fair game. Again, good liberal principles apply.

But the inherent rightness of "outing"? Nope, doesn't work for me at all.

[UncleSepp]

13. Sorry, but you're not sorry about anything

To whom are you apologizing? And for what? And why?

This is one of those expressions that irks me to no end. It generally indicates even less respect for the addressee than the statement following the "sorry" than the same statement without the "sorry" would indicate. To me it parses as "I know this will offend you, and I don't care (insert opinion here)."

Other than that, ruggerson, I can see that your logic would be sound if there were no external factors. Unfortunately, those external factors do exist, the violence, the discrimination, the danger, the destruction of family relationships. It isn't for you to decide if a person exposes himself or herself to the risk of being out, nor is it for anyone else to decide. This goes the same if a person is liked or disliked - the ethics are the same.

[Coventina]

16. Yikes! What a hurtful idea!

Everybody, gay or straight, have things hidden in their closets. Every person should have the choice of how to live their lives, what to reveal, what not to reveal.

I am only pro-outing in certain cases. If someone has spread hate-speech and worked to oppress the GLBT community, and it turns out that they are gay, then they should be outed (Gannon).

I can't think of any other instances where it should be accepted.

Think of it this way, is it a good way to teach someone to swim by throwing them in deep water? That's pretty much what a forcible outing can do to someone.

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. The premise is technically correct. But it is fatallly flawed.

Gays and straights *should * be on equal terms but they are not. Not just in "certain parts of the country" but in every part of the country... including on this website.

Thus the implications of reporting someone's sexuality are entirely different for straights than they are for gays.

[moggie12]

20. It seems like hurting people for the good of a cause

I just don't like the idea -- maybe outing advances the cause, but it hurts people in the meantime. We want gay people to have full rights like everyone else, why don't they get the right to stay private about their sexual orientation? Does the end justify the means? Is it okay to violate someone's privacy in pursuit of a larger goal? The whole concept make me feel uncomfortable. I can't help putting this in human terms -- my cousin is gay and if he wanted that fact not to be public, I would want his decision honored.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. Given the massive bigotry against gays, I feel there should be privacy

in whether to be open about a gay sexual orientation or not. Their sexual orientation is their own private matter, to reveal or not as they choose. There are serious repercussions to being outed, the moreso if the person has been closeted for a significant time. Surely being allowed to choose their own time and way of revealing the truth about their deception would be less hurtful to their families than having strangers dump the news publicly. Whatever a family's view of sexual orientation, no one easily accepts that they have been lied to by someone so close.

A more vexed situation arises when someone in political power is actively persecuting gays and while being secretly gay themselves. Is it a "fair" political move to out them as hypocrites as a way to oppose the policies of bigotry that they have pushed? While on one level I applaud when I hear of one of these liars being exposed for what they are, on another I am troubled about the intrusion into their privacy. I suppose that an argument could be made that they have forfitted their right to privacy by their actions, but it's a grey area.

[Wat_Tyler]

24. The OP is a classic example of ideology taking precedence over lives.

And that is a path we do not want to take.

[tx_dem41]

26. Spot on, Wat. n/t

[ruggerson]

27. If the blacks had felt that way

back in the sixties, we never would have had the civil rights movement.

Sometimes cultural change takes some courage to actually do the work.

[tx_dem41]

28. Equating "celebrity reporting" to the "civil rights movement" is either..

incredibly offensive...or LOL hilarious in a sad kind of way. I'll vote for the former.

[ruggerson]

29. No one (except you just now)

did anything of the kind.

His point was about ideology vs lives or practical considerations.
My response was to that.

You then, in a leap worthy of a red herring award, brought back in an analogy to celebrity reporting.

So I will have to disagree with your point.

Respectfully, of course.

[tx_dem41]

37. But your whole premise is that because of the existence of ...

..."celebrity reporting", we should revise our moral standards. I think its a fair analogy.

[jonnyblitz]

33. it depends...

if I was outed any time during the 10 years while I was in the navy (and I had some close calls)I hate to think of what I might have gone through at that time. :scared:

[mondo joe]

35. I have zero problem with celebrities being outed.

People who seek celebrity are putting their privacy on the line.

The range of news, from gossip to legit journalism, often includes some private details of the lives of celebrities - marriages, contracts, relationships and so on.

If they can report on Katie Couric's husband, or Brad and Jennifer's breakup, there is no reason to not also report on Anderson Cooper's boyfriend.

[Deja Q]

36. Tell that to the Cheney during election 2004.

Nice spin, there. But at what cost does it take to equalize us who are?

I've always wanted to be a martyr I suppose but right now every death of a GLBT person is like on page 15 of the newspaper.

Even glbt celebs or politicians; they bury it back down. Look at Cheney's worthess travesty of a sham of a misery of a sellout of a cheap excuse of a daughter. They definitely did some spinning of their own.

[mondo joe]

38. Worrying about the cost is putting idealogy before journalism

I don't believe government should intrude on privacy.

But I don't think journalists should have separate standards for gay and straight people.

Celebrities have all sorts of personal material they might rather have private come OUT. This is no different.

[tx_dem41]

42. You do realize that most celebrity reporting is generated by their..

press agents? That makes that reporting "not private".

[mondo joe]

43. Once they have made their "personal" lives public, they assume

the risk of even those things they'd prefer to keep private going public.

It's their choice - they've opted to make their persona a business.

[tx_dem41]

46. We will agree to disagree I guess. Privacy is a cherished right ...

in America to most people on the left side of Robert Bork. To what extent one keeps it protected should be a personal matter.

[mondo joe]

47. So is freedom of the press

Privacy from govt is a cherished right. There is not now, nor has there ever been a right to privacy from the press.

[tx_dem41]

51. Freedom of the press does not mean I have to revere it...

or contribute to it, or definitely reshape my moral standard because of the resultant reporting. Feel free to wallow in the slop though.

[mondo joe]

52. I don't think you've been asked to revere anything.

Or to reshape your moral standard.

[tx_dem41]

53. Of course I've been asked to reshape my moral standard.

Since I consider "outing" to be immoral, and the OP suggests its ok to do so based on "celebrity reporting".

[mondo joe]

56. He says it's okay. You disagree,

I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't think anyone is really all that interested in your personal moral standard.

[tx_dem41]

57. Nor anyone else's. That's why its called "personal", silly.

;)

[mondo joe]

41. I don't recall anyone on DU complaining that Rush or O'reilly's privacy

should be respected when their personal issues were made public.

Is the argument that anything that might cause someone distress, or that they'd rather keep secret, should be treated as sacred by the press?

[tx_dem41]

48. I believe in both cases those issues had entered the judicial process...

Judicial proceedings are matters of public record.

[mondo joe]

50. The press isn't limitedto public record, is it?

And are you seriously suggesting if some non-judicial-process dirty laundry of O'reilly or Coulter was aired that DU members would up in arms protesting about their privacy?

[tx_dem41]

54. I am not responsible personally for the actions of other

members of DU. Do you want to be responsible for all actions by members? I do know that I have argued against the prevailing attitude on several issues.

Where did I say that the press is limited to the public record in all matters???? I said that the press was definitely all right to report it because it was public record. I hope you can undertand that logical distinction.

[mondo joe]

55. I don't know why you think I'm asking about YOU,

I asked what you think would happen on DU - I didn't ask you to be responsible for it.

So I'm asking again, do you think if some non-judicial-record dirt came out on Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'reilly DU would clamor for their right to privacy? Or do you think DU would be all over it like white on rice?

[tx_dem41]

58. Okay, I see you changed the question.

I was responding to the first question, to which I responded that people were not acting against your proposed personal moral standard.

Now that you have re-worded the question, I can't speak for others, but I would speak out against such an invasion of privacy, and have in the past.

[mondo joe]

59. Incorrect. Here are both questions side by side:

1. And are you seriously suggesting if some non-judicial-process dirty laundry of O'reilly or Coulter was aired that DU members would up in arms protesting about their privacy?

2. So I'm asking again, do you think if some non-judicial-record dirt came out on Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'reilly DU would clamor for their right to privacy? Or do you think DU would be all over it like white on rice?

It's precisely the same question - what do you think DU members would do in this circmstance - would they protest that Coulter's privacy be respected or not?

I never asked you to take responsibility for the behavior of the rest of DU.

[tx_dem41]

60. Check out post #41. That's the question that I am referring to.

I assume that some would make hay out of it. But, just like the person that posted "First comes love, then comes AIDS" to the Gannon thread, they would be wrong.

[mondo joe]

61. But you posted in response to #55. Look at the thread.

My questions followed in sequence, and I asked the same question twice because you chose to be evasive, then accused me of changing the question.

[tx_dem41]

62. Let me apologize then. You changed the question in post #50.

My bad. :)

[mondo joe]

63. No, I asked a different question in a different sub thread.

But if you'd rather play games than have an honest dialogue, that's your choice. But it does indicate your moral standards are rather flexible when it comes to your own behavior.

[tx_dem41]

64. I do believe I have answered all of your questions.

You seem to be unhappy with them and my personal moral standard, and want me to guess how others would react. Why you think I'm a mind reader is beyond me?!? I can only speculate (as, alas, I did and you didn't notice).

As well, you keep re-wording questions, because you appear to be unhappy with my answers. I'm sorry I can't make you happy.

[mondo joe]

69. I've asked, based on your experience on DU, what you'd expect

members to do in a certain circumstance.

But if you'd rather play games than have an honest dialogue there's not much more to be said.

[tx_dem41]

71. I answered that question way back in posts #58 and #60.

Sheesh. Who exactly is playing games? :eyes:

[thinkingwoman]

44. which is more moral...

telling the truth, or lying?

Belonging to a minority group myself, I understand hiding. Sometimes its necessary to save a life.

But if we're strictly speaking morality, then telling the truth is more moral than lying.

I liken this to the rape victim naming debate. If we continue to shield rape victim's names in the media, and discuss it with hushed tones, we continue to heap shame upon the victim, where it most certainly does not belong.

And I say that as a rape victim myself.

[Old and In the Way]

49. I see no reason to accommodate gays in the Republican Party.

Republicans make gay bashing an intgral part of their identity politics. In fact, it may be the core focus for their largest, single issue constituency - the "gays and god" voters. Expose this hypocrisy and what other reasons compel these voters to vote against their best interests?

I feel no compunction in potecting from exposure the sexual orientation of these politically active gay Republicans. If keeping people's homosexual orientation in the closet is the only way one can safeguard their political career, this seems to make them easy targets of blackmail...and when these people are in high positions within our government, that becomes a national security problem for all of us.

[jdj]

66. amen, or foxes like Portia de Rossi.

After ten years of speculation, I think she's finally been dragged out of the closet.

[Misunderestimator]

144. Yeah, like that guy that revealed his secret crush on the Jenny Jones show

and the object of his affections murdered him days later... like THAT kind of outing?

I'm all for hypocritical politicians who work against gay rights to be outed, but there is too much homophobia in our society to think that it's a recipe for all. That said, I won't be close friends with gay people who are in the closet, if their closet throws any shadow on me.

[ruggerson]

149. There are people murdered for many things

Being jewish. Being arab. Being anti-Bush. Being gay. Murder is horrible. But not any reason to perpetuate a policy which renders gays invisible and as something to be ashamed of.

It's a simple fact of life. And if someone is in the public eye, and if there is routine reporting on celebrities peronal lives, as there is all over the world, then this should be reported on as simply a routine, matter of fact, truth.

This journalistic policy of making gays invisible is horrendously homophobic and only serves to perpetuate the status quo.

[Misunderestimator]

152. I agree that that would be an ideal world... but I'm not willing to risk

other people's lives and livelihoods because of that ideal. More and more gay people are out, of their own volition. I see no benefit in harming those who for whatever reason have chosen to remain hidden. Especially in our current government-sanctioned homophobic atmosphere.

[ruggerson]

154. Actually I see it in just the opposite way

that as it's treated, more and more, as a routine matter of fact natural occurence, the stigma and the lies are slowly obliterated.

My humble take on it is that the religious righwing LOVES this double standard and would prefer it if the press never talked about anyone being gay. Silence and lies and omission tremendously help their cause.

But putting ideology aside, facts are still facts. And journalists are supposed to report on facts, not hide them.

[Misunderestimator]

155. Are you gay?

Because I am wondering if you would be willing to be one of the martyrs of this crusade to out everyone?

[ruggerson]

158. Yep. Since about first grade.

:)

[Misunderestimator]

159. Well, all-righty then...

:)

[tx_dem41]

156. So what "facts" would they report on ....

...when "outing" a person? I'm confused on that one.

[ruggerson]

160. That's easy

just mirror exactly what you do when reporting on straight public figures.

[tx_dem41]

162. I have never heard of reporting on "straight public figures" that are ...

"in the closet". What standards are used when reporting that?

[mondo joe]

175. Precisely. If they can report on Tom Cruise dating a woman

they can equally report on him dating a man.

If he could find one who'd have him. :-)

[tx_dem41]

176. But dating a woman doesn't make one a heterosexual.

That's the problem. It just means someone is in the company of a woman.

[ruggerson]

188. Fine. Then by that logic there is nothing wrong

with reporting on a public figure dating a man. right? after all, it doesn't make him a homosexual.

[tx_dem41]

191. But, what's the standard of "dating"?

I've had dinner many times with male friends. Even gone to a movie. Does that mean I'm gay?

[ruggerson]

199. Do you go to movies with one male friend

and have a romantic, candlelit dinner before the flick and then repeat the process several times a week with the same friend for months?

I didn't think so.

[tx_dem41]

201. Jeez, thanks for answering the question for me.

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

203. You asked n/t

:)

[mondo joe]

207. If when you kiss you feel there's no one else whose tongue you'd rather

have in your mouth, there's a chance you're dating.

Or just got really lucky.

[tx_dem41]

215. Now that's kind of funny, actually Mondo.

See, we can still get along even after this grueling thread. :-)

[mondo joe]

222. You'd better stick with your regular boyfriend

I really don't care for the sort of gameplaying dishonesty you engage in.

[tx_dem41]

227. Well, I don't like it in you either.

But, I'm not one to take a silly thread so personally. Its a shame you are. Jeez.

Oh, just for fun. Where have I been dishonest. I believe I have answered all your questions? Where have your feelings been hurt?

[tx_dem41]

209. Yep, but for some reason you and the journalist would be presuming

to know what is going on inside my head. I guess that makes one a mindreader. It wouldn't make one a journalist though. Well, maybe a FAUX journalist.

BTW: I was talking about your question back to me.

[mondo joe]

213. No, just reporting the activity, The public can decide what it

means, just as I said.

[tx_dem41]

224. Well, heck then...I see that kind of "news" all the time from the

NYDN and NY Post, and Village Voice. Its not my cup of tea, but the headlines in the gossip columns are there as I skip over them. Its hard to miss the headlines in the Lounge. I thought you guys were for some new standard of journalism. You actually are just supporting the status quo.

[mondo joe]

232. Rather what you don't see are reports of celebrities

dating persons of the same sex, though there are numerous reports of celebrities romantically linked to members of the other sex.

To acknowledge both would be something of a change.

And before you ask once more, I'd say the standard of what "dating" or "romantically linked" is would be whatever the current standard of activity or report is, but without the prohibition on mention of same sex couples.

[tx_dem41]

235. Guess what? I wasn't going to ask that!

But, I see headlines all the time about celebs dating same sex members or being caught in some questionable situation. I don't pore over them, but my goodness, that style of journalism is sooo old, its a yawner. I thought we were talking about something truly groundbreaking.

[mondo joe]

189. Fine. They can report Tom Cruise is dating a man and let the public

decide for itself what it means.

[tx_dem41]

193. How do you define "dating"?

Having dinner? Going to a movie? I've done both with male friends. Does that mean I'm gay?

[mondo joe]

202. They can use the same standard they do to report Tom's female dates

But if you really don't know if you're dating someone, I can't help you.

[tx_dem41]

206. No, that's the problem. YOU and the journalist wouldn't know.

Only I know what is going on in my head. You don't know at all, but you want to make a conclusion anyway. If you call that journalism, go right ahead. I disagree.

[mondo joe]

211. I didn't say to report what's going on in his head, I said to report his

date.

Look again, silly thing.

[tx_dem41]

229. Well, like I said before...that's old journalism you are supporting.

Heck, I thought you were talking about some new groundbreaking thing. You're just for the status quo. After all this time (220+ posts on this thread), let me just say that I'm disappointed.

[ruggerson]

234. The status quo does not report on gay public figure's lives

It currently renders them invisible

[tx_dem41]

236. Wow....do you actually ever read

the NYDN, or NY Post or Village Voice? This (same-sex innuendo) is almost to the point of being old-school journalism. I thought you guys were proposing something radical. You're just supporting the status quo.

[ruggerson]

239. When it is actually reported

it is called "outing" and it creates a big firestorm and some folks rise up in indignation over it. Witness the Anderson Cooper thing.

What I am supporting is the idea that this shouldn't be an issue at all. And that reporting on gay folk's family lives should be as routine and non eventful as reporting on straight folk's family lives.

Despite your protestations, that is not the current state of the media. No where close.

[tx_dem41]

241. But, we've agreed that the journalist would just report about dating...

very old-school actually.

And, in what world is the Anderson Cooper thing a "big firestorm"? Certainly, not the MSM. Its only a big thing in the media that has already been discussing about these issues for a long time. Not really anything new or groundbreaking at all, actually.

[ruggerson]

243. I think you're being disingenuous

look at the attitudes just on this thread

[tx_dem41]

249. I've been quite consistent on this thread.

Can you point out where I have been disingenuous? I haven't accused you of being dishonest once. We have been having a rather good discussion about journalistic standards. Its taken awhile for both of us to get to the meat of the issue, but I think we have.

You are for reporting the "dating" activities of public figures, same-sex or opposite sex. I think we can agree that is your position. I also stated that it occurs in MSM today. Heck, there are gossip columns that report this stuff all over this country. Whatever floats some people's boats I guess.

Please, point out any dishonesty on my part.

[ruggerson]

252. I've reiterated my position about ten times

it's not just about the "dating habits" of public figures.

I want the press to report on everyone's life with ONE standard. I do not want a double standard of censorship or omission because someone is gay.

Don't know how much more simply I can put it.

[tx_dem41]

292. I agree that you have said that...and you have been consistent with it.

We just disagree. That's all. Its nothing earthshattering where one of us has to accuse the other of being disingenuous.

I've stated my opinion that I see no double standard, because I don't see where "in the closet" heteros are reported on either. Its the out-of-the closet people (straight and gay) whose dating and sex lives are splashed across this nation's publications and airwaves.

Can you site a case where the sex lives of "in the closet" heteros are publicized differently than "in the closet" gays? That truly is the apt comparison.

Also, since I have been asked repeatedly to do the same on this thread, can you answer my original question? Where have I been disingenuous on this thread? You made the charge, I would hope you could back it up. It seems the decent thing to do when charging a person with such an offense.

[ruggerson]

157. And the argument can be made

that it is far easier in society for people to do harm to the "other". By keeping gays invisible, they remain the "other" and thus subject to violence and harrassment.

By taking the opposite approach, and treating the fact of someone being gay as a routine, matter of fact part of the structure of their adult life, we then slowly make it less and less acceptable to stigmatize them and put them at risk.

I think a very legitimate argument can be made that it will ultimately be far less dangerous to gays and lesbians if the press starts making them the "us" instead of the "other."

[Misunderestimator]

190. It's a catch-22. I have been out of the closet my entire adult life...

except for a few situations where my job would have been at stake, not a job I would ever take again. I do NOT however think that most gay people have my luxury of not worrying whether or not I will be discriminated against and lose my job... the worry is still there for me, but it is not as present as say, someone working on an assembly line. Therefore, I do not presume to decide what is best for them. Simple.

Jeff Gannon/Gueckert on the other hand... a public figure who intentionally works against gay rights in whatever fashion... OUT HIM THE HELL OUT, if he is indeed gay. And out any other hypocritical politicians.

Sure, outing everyone right now (though I have no idea how that would work effectively) would eventually lead to more acceptance, but the price to pay in the present is too high. Convince gay people to come out... be an example to them... be an example that coming out is a freeing experience and does not have to be a negative thing. But do NOT impose your ideals on those who may have no choice but to be in the closet.

[mondo joe]

195. Please correct me of I'm wrong, but it seems your argument is

"out them if it suits your political agenda" but it's unethical to do so otherwise.

If that's a correct interpretation - and it may not be - I don't think it holds water. If it's unethical, it's unethical whether it suits your own agenda or not.

[tx_dem41]

198. Shocking, Mondo

This might make you ill-at-ease, but we actually agree on this small narrow point. Video at 10. :)

[Misunderestimator]

214. Out hypocrites who hurt other gay people with their support of anti-gay

policies... if I wasn't clear enough. Why would you boil what I said down to outing gays to suit a political agenda? It about politics that hurt others, not just politics.

[mondo joe]

218. I'm really trying to clarify here -

The reason I boiled it down as I did was because your argument rests on the POLICIES of the gays you think should be exposed, which I concude to mean are different from policies you prefer.

If the idea is to out gays who support an agenda not favored by most gays, what is the guiding principle?

If it's that their politics determine who gets outed, that seems sort of sticky to me because it's just a political tool. And I don't think the press should be useed to advocate for political agendas.

[Misunderestimator]

223. Public figures that work as elected politicians who have the power

to persuade policy... yes. I believe that if they work against policies that affect gay people when they are themselves gay and living in the closet, they should be outed.

I never said that the press should be responsible for that outing... I am more than happy to do it myself.

[mondo joe]

228. But isn't the press the medium through which that's done?

I mean if it's only on a message board that doesn't do much.

How about pseudo-public figures who are not elected? If you had photos of Jerry Falwell, let's say, having sex with a man.

He's not an elected official.

Would it be right to out him in the press? If so, is it because of his politics?

[Misunderestimator]

233. The press is supposed to report on things that happen...

if one of the things that happens is that thousands of people are outing a politician through interviews, protests, whatever, then they are reporting on what those people are doing. I have literally NO FAITH in the media going out and actually doing something constructive to benefit gay citizens... why would I assume that they would out hypocritical politicians.... ONLY if they are forced to.

Falwell... Absolutely... if I had a picture of him having sex with a man, I would do my utmost to expose his hypocrisy. If I can get someone in the press to listen, then great... they would be providing a valuable service.

[ruggerson]

237. You seem to feel that reporting on someone being gay

is "exposing" them. I don't. I guess we have different mindset on the issue. I see it as factually reporting on the family structure of an adult public figure.

[Misunderestimator]

244. You seem to not be reading my posts...

[ruggerson]

257. I am reading your posts

And I don't understand why it is acceptable to report on the facts of someone being gay who has engaged in anti gay politics, while it is not acceptable to report on someone being gay who has not engaged in anti gay politics.

I don't see where a person's politics or their past activity has anything do with what should be routine, factual reporting.

I'm just advocating that there be no double standard. There currently is.

[mondo joe]

238. But if one of the things that happens is a celebrity pretending

to be something he's NOT, isn't that something happening too?

And no person has ever yet been outed by thousands of people, so there'd never be any coverage of anyone, politician or otherwise.

I agree with you, I don't have faith inthe media doing something constructive to benefit gay citizens. But that's because that's not what the media is supposed to do. It's just supposed to report the news.

So regarding Falwell, it does appear your stance is that some gays should be outted if you don't like their politics - even non-elected gays.

But if outting people is bad, it seems to me it ought to be bad no matter what their politics. Otherwise you have the politics superceding the ethics. And once the press is involved, you have the press deciding which politics to support - and which to oppose.

[tx_dem41]

240. Celebrities pretending to be something they are not is NEWS to you?...

Might I suggest that you need to get out more, Mondo. :-)

[Misunderestimator]

242. I see it more as outing hypocrites... I just don't see any problem with

that... I'm not saying that my opinion is gospel, just that it's my opinion. And again, I'm not saying that it's anyone's or the media's obligation to out anyone. I would take it on myself to out people who harm me. Yes, I do base who I would out on what policies they support that affect me. Absolutely. Not once have I argued however that it should be your policy or the media's policy.

[mondo joe]

246. I understand. But aren't there hyopcrites aplenty who

aren't doing anything to hurt gays?

If Richard Gere, for example, was pretending to be in love with Cyndy Crawford and so on, but it was really a sham marriage, isn't that hypocritical?

If it's JUST hypocrisy everyone would be in the news.

But it seems to me again that it just down to politics, and doing something you consider unethical if it were about anyone else, just because you oppose their politics.

[Misunderestimator]

247. Hypocrites who hurt others when they are making public policy...

damn... how specific do I have to be here... these people represent us... Richard Gere does not.

[mondo joe]

250. Jerry Falwell doesn't represent us either.

That's specifically why I asked about him.

He's not elected, he's not a legislator, he's not even an appointee. Jerry Falwell doesn't represent us any more than Richard Gere does.

The theme really seems to be outting as political retribution. Not that there isn't some argument that can be made for that - it's just not an argument I'd make.

[Misunderestimator]

254. Fine... you're right... but Falwell most certainly influences policy

and I find religious hypocrites more distasteful than political ones.

[mondo joe]

256. I do too.

But I still want to be clear.

If the position is that it's unethical to out someone, but we're willing to do it as political retaliation, I think it's worth acknowledging it.

[ruggerson]

226. I don't think the news should be following an agenda

one way or the other. They should report FACTS. If it's a FACT that candidate A or celebrity B are living with a life partner of fifteen years and they have routinely reported on the marriage and family of other candidates and celebrities, then REPORT the facts.

Regardless of whether candidate A or celebrity B is supportive or against a particular political agenda.

Just the facts. Without any censoring due to an adherence to a subliminal rightwing value system.

[Misunderestimator]

231. As I just said to mondo joe... I never once said that the media has the

responsibility to out them. Your question was whether the media should out gays, and my fundamental answer is no. However, if a policitian works against gay policies and lives a hypocritical life, he should be outed... I did not say by whom.

Most gay public people who are closeted go to extreme lengths to maintain their privacy... for the "news" to report on them being gay would take a concerted amount of effort on their part to report "just the facts." Seems like a waste of effort simply to destroy someone's life, unless there is a very good reason... such as the hypocrisy of a gay politician who votes against gay rights. That would be worth investigating.

[mondo joe]

174. Again, the news isn't there to protect subjects from any possible

negative outcomes.

If you ask journalists to protect some groups they are open to protecting any groups.

And that's not what the press is there for.

[mondo joe]

172. He did out himself, you know.

And if journalists have to look not run a story with any possible negative outcome of a news story, they might as well shut down.

[Cuban_Liberal]

179. Sorry, but no, it isn't.

:thumbsdown:

[LeftCoast]

245. My sexuality is none of your goddamned business

If I choose to out myself (and I often do) that's my business. Neither you, nor anyone else has the right to out me. That includes journalists. The only person you have a right to out is yourself.

I really don't appreciate your uber-moral, do-gooder attitude. Gays don't need your kind of 'help.'

[mondo joe]

248. Why is this a sacred cow?

The family lives of celebrities are regular news material.

I think by reducing it to just your sexuality you are affirming the message of homophobes who say gays who ARE out are only talking about their sex lives.

[LeftCoast]

255. If you'd ever had anyone vandalize your house because you were gay

you might feel differently. Ever been gay-bashed? How about just being called "fagot"? I think the notion that we need to know the sexual orientation of every celebrity is just ridiculous. By that same logic should we label every Jewish celebrity? After all, by keeping quiet about their Jewish identity, they're oppressing the Jewish race, right?

[mondo joe]

258. I'm gay and I've had my share of all the usual troubles

But I still don't think there should be a policy of secrecy, and I don't think we need to know the sexual orientation of every celebrity.

But this is more than sexual orientation.

I'm not just gay when I have sex.

I have a spouse. I have a family. I have a family life. These things are generally considered newsworthy for people married to someone of the other gender - why should mine have a special secret status.

And frankly I have no problem with any acknowledgement that someone is a Jew. It's not something to be ashamed of. And, for what it's worth, Jews aren't a "race".

[LeftCoast]

268. So you're saying sometimes it's ok, but not always?

I'm confused here. It seems like you're saying that it's ok to out someone, just not every time? Pray tell when?

Perhaps our definitions of outing are different? When I use that term, I'm talking about revealing someone's sexual identity when they have chosen to keep that a secret. I would never reveal your sexual orientation unless you were already out. I find it really shocking that anyone would feel that revealing someone's most closely guarded secret is morally ok.

[mondo joe]

270. I'm saying there should be one standard of coverage

If it's the sort of story that would typically include family information, include it regardless of the gender of the spouse.

I think if your sexual orientation (your LIFE) is your most closely guarded secret, don't opt for celebrity because if you do you are choosing to risk your privacy.

If your sexual orientation is truly a closely guarded secret no one can report on it because how would they know?

But if you have a lover, an occassional boyfriend, or even the infrequent one night stand then you're not guarding the secret all that closely.

[LeftCoast]

273. The OP said Outing was morally correct

It's not. If the person is already out, the issue is moot. For those who are not out, I do not believe it is morally correct to reveal that secret. I'm all for us queers getting equal rights and treatment, but outing someone has nothing to do with promoting equal rights.

[mondo joe]

278. And if you read past the subject

you'd see that what he's asking for is a consistent standard in reporting. If you report on the family lives of straight celebs, do it on the gay celebs as well. THAT is what he says is morally right.

[LeftCoast]

285. You should try re-reading the post

"The argument will be, well, being gay is still considered a "taboo" in some parts of the country and people should have the right to have that "taboo" remain a secret if they so wish.

Bull. We won't see any progress on this issue until the media treats being straight and being gay as the exact same thing and freely reports on every celebrities love life, without special exemptions due to bigoted attitudes."

The above clearly argues that if the celeb is not out, s/he should be outed.

[mondo joe]

286. I did read it. You skipped the part

You skipped the part in which he advocates ONLY that the same standard be applied to gay and straight families.

You just quoted some additional commentary on it.

[ruggerson]

259. No one said anything about knowing the orientation of every celebrity

that is a red herring.

The argument is that there should be no double standard. The press should report facts. And not make judgements. And by staying silent on a politician or celebrity's adult family structure when they are gay, but freely reporting on it when they are straight, the double standard is being perpetuated.

[ruggerson]

253. What makes sexual orientation so special

as to deserve this hush hush "hands off" approach you advocate?

Why is it different than having the press report on someone's religion or ethnicity or whether the subject is right or left handed?

To advocate having a double standard for covering gay people in the press is simply WRONG. And it is an attitude that literally reeks of homophobia.

[LeftCoast]

260. Wrong!

It is generally not journalistic practice to discuss someone's religion, though it does happen. If religion or sexual orientation is germaine to the story, it should be talked about. Simply to label every celebrity as gay, straight or bi is rediculous.

I think you need to prove your case that there is some strange sort of double standard. You're just making crap up now.

[mondo joe]

261. Oh that's really quite untrue

I've read SO many pieces that mention someone being raised Catholic, or how their faith as a Jew is so very important to them.

And there absolutely is a double standard.

There are PLENTY of news stories about the family lives of celebrities - political and otherwise. But if the family life includes a spouse of the same sex it's supposed to be off limits according to some here. That is nothing but a double standard.

[ruggerson]

263. Correct, and it's mind boggling to me that someone would pretend otherwise

And it just shows me further how intellectually empty the argument opposing a double standard really is.

[LeftCoast]

271. You do understand that there is a difference between

being OUT and being OUTED don't you? You seem to be confusing the two and they are totally different concepts.

[mondo joe]

274. They're not, really. Not where celebrities are concerned.

There are plenty of celebs who are known among friends to be out. But their spouse is NEVER mentioned in any mainstream media.

You should really admit that there are multiple levels of being OUT. There are people who are out at home but not at work. Or everywhere but with family. Or any number of configurations.

[LeftCoast]

281. There are levels of being out, but being OUTED is still wrong

And who decides who's a celebrity? Who decides if they're out enough? If I become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company (fat chance), am I now fair game? Or maybe I'm an athlete, say an Olympian - should I be outed? I know, I know...if I'm a Republican then I can be outed, right?

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

283. So you say.

If they cover the family life of a hetero olympian they should do the same for a gay olympian.

Same with a CEO. Same with a politician.

If your "sexuality" is your most closely guarded secret no one can ever out you because it will be KEPT a secret.

If you're a celebrity and you have a boyfriend, it's fair game for news.

[LeftCoast]

287. Well, have fun then

I'm sure you'll have a gay ol' time destroying lives and leaving a trail of destruction in your wake, but since you're morally superior than everyone else, I'm sure they can take comfort in the fact that at least they're not being 'oppressed' by their secret anymore.

[mondo joe]

288. I don't believe the press should be complicit in keeping secrets

And I think you should think about all the harm that can come from that precedent.

[ruggerson]

284. I think the whole concept of "Outing"

is incredibly offensive and homophobic to begin with as it implies that there is something shameful or wrong about being gay, to the extent that it must be hidden.

The only thing I'm advocating is that there be no double standard when it comes to reporting on a public figure's private life. If we are going to mention Politician A's spouse and kids, then we should mention Politician B's partner and kids.

[tx_dem41]

293. So you believe that gays who remain in the closet for whatever reason...

are practicing self-hatred? You must if you say that they feel shame and feel its wrong to be gay. I just want to understand that this is what you are saying.

[LeftCoast]

269. Well then cite a few

Besides, if they've mentioned how being a Jew is important to them then they weren't 'outed'.

[mondo joe]

272. Well let's see

Bill Clinton often spoke about his religion.

Richard Gere speaks frequently about Buddhism.

Madonna mentions her religion every few minutes, and it's been mentioned that she was raised Catholic.

Tina Turner has spoken about Buddhism.

Do you need more? Mention of religion is not really a taboo. Some days it seems practically required.

[LeftCoast]

275. In none of those examples you cited was anyone outed

Still waiting.

[ruggerson]

277. See post #276

n/t

[ruggerson]

279. Both Kerry and Madeline Albright were "outed"

by the MSM as being of jewish heritage.

And no one screamed that there was anything wrong with it. Because, frankly, there wasn't. They are public figures and a journalist dug up info about their ancestry. (shrug)

[mondo joe]

280. Because religion isn't generally a secret

You wrote, and I quote "It is generally not journalistic practice to discuss someone's religion".

And I said their religion is often discussed, and cited examples.

I never suggested anyone was OUTING religion because why on earth would they need to?

[ruggerson]

291. All I hear is..... CRICKETS..... CHIRPING.....

[tx_dem41]

295. No...that's the distinct sound of people having lives.

You and I on the otherhand apparently have no lives. :)

[ruggerson]

300. Well he was here when he asked the question

And conveniently ignored the fact that we came up with a couple of very good examples to disprove this thesis. :)

[ruggerson]

276. Don't forget the people who didn't even KNOW they had jewish heritage

but the press felt quite sanguine about reporting to us that they did.

John Kerry and Madeline Albright spring to mind.

[tx_dem41]

294. The distinction is that those "celebrities" have chosen to publicize..

their religious backgrounds and families. Many other celebrities (gay and straight) are quite protective about these and other things and don't allow anything to be released by their agents about their private lives. So, its not really a gay/straight thing? Its really a privacy thing with you?

[mondo joe]

299. I don't consider them linked. I was just addressing a falsehood.

Whether people are open or not about their religion is not related to the issue of consistency with regard to hetero and homo sexual celebrities.

[tx_dem41]

302. Then why have you been mentioning it in a lot of posts...

if its not linked?

[mondo joe]

305. Like I said, to correct a falsehood. More detail was asked for

so I provided it.

I thin you're intelligent enough to follow a thread and understand that.

[tx_dem41]

309. No, your tiresome "logic" and runarounds have completely

addled my brain. Personally, I'm fried at the moment and I'm blaming you.

At one point I thought you were an automatic response program. Now, I'm backing off that personal theory for the time being.

[ruggerson]

262. You're actually suggesting

With a straight face (no pun intended) that there IS NOT a double standard? What hogwash. I can name you ten gay celebs/politicians who are gay, but who's family structure has not been reported in the MSM, BECAUSE they are gay and the MSM has this really offensive double standard. The same celebs and pols would have their spouses and/or kids reported on quite routinely, were they straight.

[Silverhair]

265. Actually, the media should stay out of both sides private lives. NT

[mondo joe]

267. Really? So no mention of spouse or family? No mention

of anything at all personal?

[eek MD]

296. Nobody's sex life should be in the public arena, unless they want it there

Be it celebrity or otherwise....just my opinion

The national enquirer is for people who love to gossip, and i think gossip is a bad habit... :)

[mondo joe]

297. So you can't mention who someone is married to? Living with?

Nothing about family lives?

[eek MD]

301. Twisting words.

It is possible to be married to someone and not sleeping together. (Even though most married people DO sleep together)
It's also possible to live with someone without sleeping together.
(I've had roommates before)

If someone's married and talks about their sex life with the media, it's one thing.....
If your newspaper sneaks a sexual photo of a married couple and splashes it all over the world in their paper, it's completely another thing...

Would you like your sex life posted for the entire world to see?? Come on, tell us about your masturbation habits, i'm waiting....

[mondo joe]

304. But no one asked for SEX LIFE information

What was asked for was a consistent approach - if you mention the hetero spouses,you should mention the homo spouses too.

I repeat: NO ONE in this thread has asked for details of any celebrity sex life.

[eek MD]

315. Umm, last i checked, homesexuals can't get married in most states

n/t

[mondo joe]

318. Uhm, last time I checked they can get married in a religious ceremony

though it's not legally recognized.

Or are you saying my partner and I, who wear weadding bands, who share everything we have, who have been together for 15 years are not spouses?

[eek MD]

326. If you've had a religous ceremony to wed someone...

That's your decision. The media can report that you wed a man, since you've made that public......Most people will assume that if you wed a man that you're sleeping together.
This has nothing to do with "outting" someone against their will however. If your private behaviour stays in your bedroom, and you don't have a public ceremony, and you don't announce it, what right does it give anyone to report it against your wishes?

[mondo joe]

329. Wait, if I have a religious ceremony how is it public?

"If your private behaviour stays in your bedroom, and you don't have a public ceremony, and you don't announce it, what right does it give anyone to report it against your wishes?"

What if you have a private ceremony?

What if your friends and family know but no one else?

Is it public? It is it private?

Newsflash: Being gay has not much to do with what happens "in your bedroom" as you say, and a lot to do with the rest of your life.

[eek MD]

338. ...

Quote - Newsflash: Being gay has not much to do with what happens "in your bedroom" as you say, and a lot to do with the rest of your life.

Reply - It very well does have alot to do with the rest of your life, which is why if someone wants to keep that part of their life private, i feel it's respectful to do it.

Quote - What if you have a private ceremony?

Reply - If you and your family and friends want to keep the ceremony private, you have every right to do so. I don't see what this has to do with "outting" anyone though.

The press can report on this if they find out about it. I think it would be disrespectful to you though, if you wanted to keep it private. Then again, the press seems to be selective in who they give respect to.

[mondo joe]

339. Then why are hetero spouses so regularly reported on?

Are they asked for their consent by every reporter who mentions someone was married for such and such years?

How exactly do you propose same sex spouses are handled - do they need a personal ask "Is it okay if I mention you had a wedding ceremony to another woman last year?"

Lastly, should everyone only have stories published about them they WANT in the media? You know - like Bush's marijuana usage, or Ronald Reagan consulting with an astrologer?

[mondo joe]

307. Incidentally, it's rather insulting to say that acknowledging someone

is gay is talking about their SEX LIFE.

It's the right wingers who always say that by being out gays are shoving their "sex lives" in the faces of others. Do you agree with them?

When Bill Clinton acknowledges Hillary as his wife is he divulging details about his sex life?

Let's try something: I am a male with a same sex spouse. What lurid details about my sex life did you learn from that sentence?

[eek MD]

322. I never said there's anything wrong with talking about your sex life

If you want to "out" yourself, that's your decision. I don't think anyone else should do it without your permission.

Quote - When Bill Clinton acknowledges Hillary as his wife is he divulging details about his sex life?

Response - If bill is talking about being married to hillary, he's not divulging details about his sex life. He's saying he's married. You're making the assumption that because they're married, that they're sleeping together.

Quote - Let's try something: I am a male with a same sex spouse. What lurid details about my sex life did you learn from that sentence?

Response - I learned nothing about your sex life from that sentence. If you have a spouse, it's a public record, and public records can be reported. I would make the assumption that you're sleeping together.

However, if you don't have a spouse, and don't go around telling people about your same sex partners, i don't feel that your private life should be pried into, and someone should "out" you without your permission.

[mondo joe]

323. So the press can only report on legal documents?

Funny interpretation of the 1st amendment.

[eek MD]

331. you seem to have a fascination with wanting to invade people's privacy.

I don't think that who someone is sleeping with is noteworthy news. It's merely meant for gossip-mongering. That's just my opinion.

as for what the press can report on, they have a right to report on pretty much anything they want to. do i think it's respectable journalism to go nosing into people's private bedrooms against their wishes?, no.

[mondo joe]

333. Once more: When did I ask to know who's sleeping with who?

Please stop lying. I never asked to know any details about anyone's sex life.

I simply ask that the press abandon the double standard that reports consistently about the FAMILY lives of heterosexuals, but skirts around it in the case of homosexuals.

[mondo joe]

337. I wonder if Eek MD will ever substantiate his or her claims

I'm not optimistic. :-(

[ruggerson]

303. Who said anything about someone's sex life?

If you tell me you're straight, have you given me specifics about your sex life?

[eek MD]

314. If i tell you i'm straight.....that means

If i tell you i'm straight, it means that i don't care if you know it. If i don't tell you i'm straight, i don't think it's any of your business.....

If i'm hanging all over a woman or a man at a bar, i obviously don't care whether other people know about it......

If i'm doing something legal, with a consenting adult in the privacy of my own home, what gives anyone the right to snoop into my life and splash those private details all over the pages of the weekly paper against my will.

I feel that there should still be some respect for people's privacy. If they don't want the world to know that they have a proclivity to sleep with men, use whips, or know what types of porn they like to watch, i feel that they should be able to keep it private, without busybodies nosing in on it. Just my opinion....

[ruggerson]

316. Uhh, being gay has nothing to do with either whips or porn

And if that's the connection you make in your head, then there is little we have in common ground.

[mondo joe]

319. Eek MD is really touting the party line of the anti gay forces

According to him, if you acknowledge that you're gay you're talking about your sex life. And your same sex partner isn;t your spouse because you're not legally married.

It's like he's channeling Jesse Helms.

[tx_dem41]

325. If your going to make that charge...

at least have the balls to actually say it in a response to the poster you are aiming it at. You keep playing that little game on this thread.

[eek MD]

341. *sigh*

Now i'm channelling Jesse Helms??

I give up. I must obviously suck at getting my point across, because somehow it's become so twisted and convoluted.

I haven't been trying to put forth an anti-gay message, and i apologize if it's come across that way. I just think that people should be able to make their lifestyle public or keep it private if they want to do it. Whether that lifestyle be straight or gay or bi.

[ruggerson]

342. No apologies needed

But this isn't a "lifestyle". That's another religious rightwing buzzword. This is about people's lives.

Peace, I'm sure you have the best intentions. :)

[mondo joe]

343. As far as THIS gay man is concerned

When you say letting people know you're gay is telling them about your sex life, it is offensive.

I am gay 24 hours a day - I have a partner of 15 years, a family, the joys and challenges of most unions. Acknowledging that is NOT talking about my sex life.

And we ROUTINELY see reports on the family lives of hetero people that no one blinks an eye at, or claims is an expose on their sex lives. There's no reason to view gay families differently.

[eek MD]

348. i apologize, and did not mean to offend....

i do feel the media needs to be on an equal playing field with both straight and gay people.

my beef with the media is that they report too much on "hot gossip", and not enough on news.

I apologize for my point being taken the wrong way. Being straight myself, it's difficult to see life from a gay perspective. I admit that i didn't read the entire main post, which is a big no-no, and misunderstood what the main conversation was supposed to be about.

[mondo joe]

350. Eek, I apologize for coming on too hard

There has been a lot of heated discussion, and the temperature was up a bit when you got here.

Thanks for taking the first step in making peace.

[eek MD]

351. Thanks...

I also am on the message boards to learn things myself, and not just argue. I feel i have learned something tonight about the relationship between the words "gay" and "sex", which i never realized was engrained into my brain. The right-wing talking points definitely stick in one's mind like glue, when you've grown up and that's all you've been exposed to. Thanks for helping me to realize this.

As to your discussion in the thread below, on ruggersons list, i'd be b)i have no gay friends or family members that i'm aware of. (not many friends at all at the moment actually) although, i'm hoping that i may make a few more on here... :)

[tx_dem41]

321. Oh, c'mon Ruggerson. You're better than that.

The poster didn't say that. If you are going to charge others with tossing out Red Herrings, at least have the decency to NOT throw your own out.

[ruggerson]

324. Wrong

This is a discussion about how we publicly discuss people's hard wired orientations which lead to how they structure their adult family lives.

He is attempting to misguidedly or maliciously or both claim that this is a discussion about people's sexual proclivities.

Until you've walked a mile in a gay person's shoes, it's really hard to understand to understand how deeply offensive it is to have their adult family life reduced to "sex."

[tx_dem41]

330. I guess I was wrong then.

You don't appear to be better than that. It's a disappointment. I was enjoying the thread, and thought that some of your reasoning I had at least some empathy for. But, you haven't answered my questions to you (after haranguing me for not answering yours), now you're throwing out wild charges at posters with little or no backup. And then ignoring requests to back them up. Oh well, another lesson learned on DU. Don't have faith in people being consistent. Big disappointment.

Cya, guys! Its been fun.

[ruggerson]

334. Yep

I'm not capable anymore of sitting around and listening to homophobia disguised as compassion (or anything else for that matter).

Funny, I thought that did make me a better person. I guess we'll have to disagree on what constitutes right and wrong.

[tx_dem41]

336. We will also disagree on what the definition of intellectual

honesty is. The irony of you calling me disingenuous earlier (a charge that you have never backed up even though I politely asked you too) is delicious.

BTW, in fairness, I edited my last post while you were answering it. Read the rest, if you so please.

[ruggerson]

340. And we will disagree on intellectual honesty

1) I said you were being disingenuous when you wrote:

"And, in what world is the Anderson Cooper thing a "big firestorm"?"

When it's quite obvious that for some folks, this topic IS a big firestorm. Hell, this is a huge conundrum for the media right now, especially as more and more gay people are debunking the lies the religious rightwing tells about us.

And, I think it's more than intellectually dishonest to refer to something "you guys" have done (wrt supposed namecalling) when I don't think I've done any such thing. If you lump me in with another poster, just because we agree on this issue and are both gay, then that says more about you than about me.

What I did object to in these particular posts was, once again, the parrotting of the religious rightwing argument that reduces being gay to a discussion about sexual activities.

To say or write something like that is incredibly demeaning and demonstrates such little grasp for what we are discussing that I don't know that we have any common ground to continue a dialogue.

Capiche?

[ruggerson]

345. And furthermore how is mondojoe

"throwing out wild charges" by posting that eekMD seems to be channeling Jesse Helms.

Upon re reading mondo joe's post, he is essentially right on target. And I would call his post colorful and descriptive.

Maybe it hit a nerve with ya.

[mondo joe]

332. I love all the misguided liberals here who reduce us to "your sex life"

or "what happens in your bedroom".

I hate to hear liberals parrot the lines of the far right.

[ruggerson]

344. It's because

a) they live in an area where the religious right predominate

or

b) they have no gay friends or family members (that they are aware of)

or

c) They are intellectually lazy


or

d) all of the above

[mondo joe]

349. e) they have a victim mindset

or

f) They do think if you're gay it is a dirty secret

e) They feel sorry for gays and think it's a sort of sad abnormality

I love heterosexuals yelling at me that I don't understand I'm treated like a 2nd class citizen and I'm a victim.

[mondo joe]

317. I'm sorry, is the press supposed to only report on things people WANT

known now?

What gives someone the right to print it? The First Amendment.

And if people want to keep things a secret, they can do it - don't let anyone know. But to ask the press to be complicit in a double standard of secrecy is something else.

By the way, you haven't answered my question. You say this is about SEX LIVES. And I'm asking again, what DETAILS ABOUT THEIR SEX LIFE does knowing a man has a male spouse give you?

[ruggerson]

312. This is exac tly the definition of being gay that the religious right want

They want you to think it's all about having sex.

They don't want it known that it can mean falling love, partnering up with someone, having all the highs and lows, trials and tribulations of a committed relationship, perhaps having kids together, raising those kids, buying a house, working together to pay the mortgage, stressing out over the bills, loving one another, trusting one another, having tremendous pride in the life you've built together....

Hmmm... sounds a bit like being straight, doesn't it? And we haven't once mentioned sex.

[mvd]

358. Locking

This thread is no longer generating productive discussion, and there have been quite a few personal attacks.

DU Moderator