Is outing politicians ethical?
Image via Wikipedia
An interesting piece on the front page of today’s LA Times carries a somewhat amusing title:
When outing politicians, follow guidelines
and even more perplexing sub-head:
Reporters must proceed with caution when disclosing people’s sexual orientation against their wishes.
In other words, be careful how you turn that politician’s world upside down. The article that follows, however, is a rather poignant story told about a former LA school board member and a reporter’s dilemma in how to cover her widely-speculated but not publicly proclaimed lesbianism. The story makes a good case that while there may be times when it seems appropriate to out “hypocrite” politicians–Larry Craig comes to mind–the consequences of outing should be taken into account for those elected officials who do not publicly espouse anti-gay views but who have not openly described themselves as gay.
For gay activists, there is often no middle ground on this issue. In order for society to cure itself of its bias against homosexuality, a full accounting is required, however painful that process may prove. On the other hand, no value is more sacred in our society than that of privacy, whether it hides ethically dubious behavior (of the non-criminal variety) or not.
The ethics of outing were on display last month, when NPR pulled one of its contributor’s reviews of the film “Outrage”, which outs several politicians, because the reviewer also mentioned them by name. NPR Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard examined the issue and wrote:
NPR’s policy is not to publish on air rumors, allegations or reports about private lives of anyone unless there is a compelling news reason to do so.
Apparently, a film about outing does not meet the “compelling” standard, even though NPR commissioned a review in the first place.
Lastly, here’s the theatrical trailer for “Outrage”. I’m curious to read what you make of this issue in the comment section.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Larry Craig was not outed he was arrested!
“For gay activists, there is often no middle ground on this issue”
How many gay activists do you know? How many have you discussed the issue with? I’m willing to bet very few if any. This gay activists and the many I know only believe in outing when there is cause.
Brian,
In addition to knowing a few gay activists in San Francisco and NYC, I’ve read quite a bit on the subject of outing. Are you saying there isn’t a view that suggests that politicians should, because of their public office, be outed?
And isn’t the “cause” a subjective matter?
No I’m saying politicians should be outed when there is cause, when a politician engages in anti-gay rhetoric or trying to pass anti-gay laws. Otherwise I don’t see any reason for it.
I’d agree with that.
I think the rule should be clear, simple and oblivious to political leanings.
1. If you choose to be a public figure, then you accept going in that you will be scrutinized in both your public positions and private life. All politicians should know they are subject to being outed as part of regular coverage.
2. If you are a private figure who chooses to take a public stance on an issue — financing an anti-gay campaign, for example — then you subject yourself to scrutiny as well.
3. If you are a private person who does not take a public position on a policy matter, you shouldn’t be outed against your wishes.
I don’t believe a principal in a school is a public person automatically subject to scrutiny. She shouldn’t be outed against her will.
None of these rules is written in stone. There will be plenty of examples that raise questions. But there should be guidelines.
For what it’s worth, I have covered sports for more than two decades. I know of gay athletes and administrators. I have never outed anyone. They chose to be athletes, not public figures. Now, if any of them had taken a public stance against gays or lesbians, they would have been subject to outing.
The truth be told, outing is not the real issue, the real issue is why people still feel they have to live in the closet!
Always a fascinating topic. I applaud NPR for their actions, it only affirms why they are one of the only sources of news that I trust.
In my opinion unless there are extraordinary circumstances (anti-homosexual agenda) then sexual orientation is simply none of our business. The right to one’s privacy supersedes all else in this issue.
Frankly, unless a politician runs on or espouses an anti-gay agenda I couldn’t care less who he/she chooses to sleep with. What two consenting adults do in their own bedroom is their own business.
I honestly don’t understand why anyone cares about it. In the ultimate scheme of things it really has no bearing on any of our lives.
David,
I think it is up to the individual to decide whether he/she comes out. They have to live with themselves and the decisions they make. From Hollywood to Washington D.C. There may be a bigger price to pay by not being outed for all we know. It’s funny that some people think that because of their good reasons, it’s OK to out someone else. If you want to out yourself fine. For someone else to do it as a retaliatory act because of their voting record etc. is kind of bullshit and petty.
Being in Public Service doesn’t mean I get to know about anybody’s sex life. I’m not interested in anyone’s sex life except my own. I am not a politician or actor…I’m a nobody. But, even if I was a public figure, I would still only care about my own sex life. Larry Craig may seem like the biggest hypocrite in the world, but that’s his business. Perhaps, his conservative views, he really believes? Or, his conservative views are more defining of who he is than being gay. I worry about the mental state of someone that believes it is their obligation or right to out somebody else. Even the biggest hypocrite in the world has innocent people in their lives that can really get hurt. You can think you know who should be outed and who shouldn’t be, but that’s just your opinion. That line may be somewhere else for someone else.
It’s just like my brother thinking I am sick and perverted because I have done absolutely wild things that he hasn’t. I’m not very shy sexually. The funny thing is, there are a couple things I would never do, but I don’t think that those that partake in those activities are sick and perverted. The line is just different.
I don’t think we are here to cause even the worst of us any unnecessary pain or any pain at all. Using the fact that they are a public figure, is a form of cowardice. I try not to judge other people too harshly. I think it is impossible to not judge people at all, but it is possible to not act on it.
For those that disagree, take comfort in the fact that it seems these things have a way of coming out all by themselves, perhaps when the time is right.
Sandy
I wonder. Are all people either hetero or homo? Is it really so cut and dry? Is it right for everyone — or even just public figures — to be subject to someone else’s interpretation of who they are? A reporter can say that so-and-so, a male, was seen with a male prostitute, for example, fine — but what would that reporter say about a woman who is seen hugging another women? What expert is interpreting and making judgments about all the variations and expressions of human sexuality and deciding who fits into what slot? Whatever. It just seems so unnecessary and self-righteous to be obsessed with who is doing what with whom …
rockyinlaw,
I think that’s an excellent point.
Sandy,
I was taken by your statement that it’s Larry Craig’s business if he wants to be a hypocrite. Nice.
I find myself agreeing NYC Brian. Expose for cause only – which, it seems, is the point of the film. Consider situations unrelated to sexual orientation. A Member of Congress sponsors an abortion ban while at the same time quietly paying for the abortion of his mistress. A city council member votes to ban handguns in a particular town while owning 11 of them and paying dues to the local shooting club.
When viewed like this the outings seem perfectly legitimate to me. If elected representative in this republic are suppose to represent us, shouldn’t we know what they actually believe.
On the other hand you could represent your constituents without practicing the same in your personal life, but it seems inherently dishonest to me.