Include Me Out
I have a bit more sympathy than Andrew Sullivan does for news organizations unsure of the ettiquette of “inning” or “outing” subjects of news stories, flattering or unflattering.
Some time ago, I wrote a blog post that referred to a male friend’s “boyfriend” in passing. The friend in question was casually out at work – he didn’t seem to be feeling people out before letting slip that he was gay, it was just part of who he was, to everybody. So I assumed I wasn’t “outing” him by the reference.
Well, he objected. Not because he had any problem with being known as gay. Nor, in general, was his boyfriend closeted in any strict sense. But his boyfriend had a job where he dealt with people who he wasn’t comfortable being out to. He, too, was out in his community, out to his family, out to his coworkers – but not out to all of his clients. And so he asked me to change to post, just to be sure that he and his boyfriend had control over who they were out to. Which, of course, I did.
It is very difficult for me to see how anyone directly involved in a story is hurt by a general rule that errs on the side of protecting privacy in these matters. People, after all, could want privacy for reasons that have nothing to do with any personal sense of shame, could want privacy even if, in general, they feel that the closet is a bad place that they want everyone to be able to leave. I can, of course, see the potential to set back that larger political cause if a conservative rule on this subject were followed. But whether one finds the balance that the Washington Post struck to be too conservative not, I think it’s quite a leap to go from the facts at hand to an accusation that the decision was in some sense objectively anti-gay or “homophobic.” I think that kind of accusation requires something more substantial by way of evidence than the decision itself.
Your point is well taken in abstract. But in the case in question, the guy is DEAD. There is no privacy after that and the WP piece wasn’t outing anybody else.
— niraj · Mar 31, 11:57 PM · #
One might recall that under the rubric of ‘bearing false witness’ is the sin of detraction, or revealing the faults of another without just cause. Our age is exhibitionistic and people in general and reporters in particular violate this commandment without a thought. We should not tolerate this age.
— Art Deco · Apr 1, 01:06 AM · #
niraj: as I understand, the family had some kind of qualms about publicizing the sexual orientation of their slain son. What kind I have no idea. The WP made the call that they would err on the side of conservatism, and not mention anything. Sullivan called that a sign of anti-gay bias. Which means: he believes that when it comes down to some kind of a judgment call, the press should, presumably, err on the side of outing the person in question. I think you can make an argument in either direction as to which is the better policy – which harm from error is more serious. But I don’t think it’s fair to say the decision “perpetuates the notion that there is something shameful about being gay” as Sullivan says. What Sullivan means is: that kind of decision in general will mean less awareness of the prevalence of gay people all through American life and, in this instance, deprived people of knowledge of a gay hero and an example with which to attack the injustice of the military ban on openly gay servicemen (and women). He should have left it at that instead of casting aspersions on people’s motives and character or implying that only a bigot would have made what was, I think, a perfectly reasonable judgment call, albeit one with which he disagreed.
— Noah Millman · Apr 1, 02:29 AM · #
<i>What Sullivan means is: that kind of decision in general will mean less awareness of the prevalence of gay people all through American life and, in this instance, deprived people of knowledge of a gay hero and an example with which to attack the injustice of the military ban on openly gay servicemen (and women).</i>
Which is to say that the man’s memory, the editorial policies of the <i>Post</i>, and the sensibilities of his family ought properly to be subordinated to the advancement of A. Sullivan’s hobby horses.
— Art Deco · Apr 1, 09:54 PM · #