PressEthic

A thought-provoking article was posted on the Poynter Institute's Romenesko, column that reports on media industry news. At the Boston Phoenix, Adam Reilly makes the case for a standard of ethics when it comes to "outing" or discussing the sexual orientation of public figures in the news.

Beginning with the example of Bill Maher's suggestion on Larry King that RNC chairman Ken Mehlman is gay, Reilly discusses how not only did CNN pull the plug on re-showing the clip and pulled it off YouTube, etc., but the New York Times reporter that covered the story of the show's content did not mention the name of the Republican-in-question that Maher referred to. Were these cover-ups out of fear of being sued for libel or other legal consequences? CNN asserts they were. Reilly didn't report any follow-up comment from the New York Times, if there was any.

It's an interesting dilemma, and in this case, I can see why CNN pulled the clip, citing that they don't air defamatory material. Reilly discusses how various news organizations, such as the Times and AP, have ethical standards pertaining to sexual orientation, but they are very vague.

Says the NY Times stylebook:

"Sexual orientation, never sexual preference, which carries the disputed implication that sexuality is a matter of choice. Cite a person’s sexual orientation only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader.”

Reilly follows, "Does the Times think sexuality is a matter of choice? And what’s 'pertinent'?"

The Associated Press has no written guidelines but the deputy managing editor was quoted as saying:

“Our guideline is that it’s not inherently newsworthy if someone’s gay. So we would only include that information if it was germane to whatever the topic of the story was.”

The point that this article gets interesting, other than just tossing around possible guidelines and standards that should be established before "outing" a public figure and where the line gets blurry, is when Reilly compares the dilemma to another dilemma a journalist might face.

But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that a similar exchange had taken place during the civil-rights struggle, with a reporter pursuing a lead that a politician who opposed integration was actually part black. Think, too, of how absurd it seemed when Republican senator George Allen of Virginia accused a reporter who asked about his reported Jewish ancestry of 'making aspersions.' Here’s the difference: on some level, it seems, even well-intentioned straight observers seem to think there’s something vaguely unseemly about being gay or lesbian. That sentiment may not be the only reason the media handle the issue as delicately as we do. But it’s part of the equation."

I think Reilly is right. There is a stigma attached to homosexuality that, despite all progress, leans more towards the negative than the neutral. Obviously when dealing with Republican public figures who are anti-same-sex-marriage and pro-"family" and strictly Christian, the question of their sexuality is relevant. And for them, it would look bad to be 'outed' after have made such a public stance against gay rights and spending so much time trying to align themselves with groups that openly do not support gays. However, this goes hand-in-hand with the example of the politician opposing integration who is actually part black -- what reporter would say that wasn't relevant and newsworthy? We are no longer in the civil rights era, but today, as far along as we like to think we are, gays are still fighting a similar battle for equality that African-Americans did.

Reilly's examples and argument also raises the question - as responsible journalists, with the power of the media in our hands, should we take the first step and treat 'outing' someone as value-neutral? Would eliminating the negative stigma from a homosexual orientation help to advance equality and respect for the gay community? Is this our job? Or should we merely stand by and report without inserting bias, and therefore reflect the bias in the American public towards homosexuals? Should we as journalists treat 'outing' someone as exposing a flaw or a shameful personal detail about their life which they probably would rather be kept private? Or is that just reinforcing negativity towards homosexuality?

As Bay Windows editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar said in the article,

"Can you imagine running for office as a straight person and not talking about your family? I think a lot of straight people in the mainstream press, and straight liberals, have this hands-off attitude. ‘I don’t want to hurt anybody; I understand it’s a personal choice.’ Come on. Aren’t we beyond that at this point? It’s very 1980s or 1990s. Here’s the bottom line: there’s a special word for outing somebody with regard to their sexual orientation. It’s called reporting.”

Certainly something to think about; there's no denying that Reilly's call for an open discussion of news agencies, reporters, editors, and publishers addressing the issue of sexual orientation in the news and how or when to report it is long overdue.