by Deni Elliott
It's one thing to "out" yourself, as Juan Palomo did in
Houston. It's quite another when the media decide to do it for you.
The summer's end brought yet another major outing — this
time of a Pentagon official — accompanied by the ritual wringing of hands as
editors and columnists decide whether or not to name the outed
individual.
This columnist won't.
The arguments are familiar and unpersuasive: Hypocrisy and
activists' desire to force an unwilling individual to do something good for the
gay community. These may be good arguments why someone ideally should out
himself. But journalists who do the outing must have journalistic
justifications.
Where others see institutional hypocrisy, I sense a subtle
journalistic delight in the irony of a gay or lesbian functioning in a position
of authority or esteem. And I find that irony dangerously homophobic.
Where others use the individual's capacity for creating
change as criterion for outing, I say that the news media should be no one's
conscience.
To put it succinctly, the only individuals who should ever
be forced out of the closet are elected officials and those running for public
office. And they ought to be outed as often as possible.
Outings don't change institutions; outings don't benefit
individuals. Reporters and editors should have learned that long before the term
"outing" was ever coined.
One of the most chronicled outings in recent history
occurred in 1975, when a private citizen in San Francisco discovered he was
standing next to a potential assassin. Sara Jane Moore raised her gun to shoot
President Gerald Ford and Bill Sipple knocked it from her hand. He called his
action "instinctive," not heroic. He had no desire for publicity.
Gay activists had other ideas. Leaders from the local gay
community gave columnist Herb Caen a tip about where Sipple and his friends had
gone to celebrate that night and Caen printed the name of the well known gay
hangout.
The activists told local reporters it would be good for the
country to know that the hero was gay; it would help break the stereotype.
Reporters liked that idea, but they hesitated. Sipple had refused to discuss his
sexuality, claiming that his private preference had nothing to do with his
public act.
Finally, a charge of hypocrisy tipped the scales. One day
passed, two days and still no word of thanks came from the White House. Had
Sipple's sexuality shocked the president into silence? Publically, Ford had
presented himself as tolerant of homosexuality.
With a little journalistic pressure, even the hero's own
mother back in Detroit wondered. A local reporter showed Mrs. Sipple the L.A.
Times story, "Hero in Ford Shooting Active Among S.F. Gays." She hadn't
known that her son was gay. Now her published response was: "No wonder the
president didn't send him a note!"
Sipple was delighted with the handwritten note of gratitude
from President Ford that arrived three days after the event. It hung in a frame
on a wall in his disheveled apartment until Sipple's death in 1989. But it's
unlikely that the presidential note made up for the grief the outing caused
Sipple. His mother died in 1979 without ever again speaking to her son and he
remained estranged from the rest of the family until his own death.
San Francisco friends said that the unwanted publicity cost
the community a caring man who had worked for gay concerns and helped the
homeless. Sipple became a despondent recluse. He died of pneumonia at 47, alone
in his apartment; his body lay undiscovered for two weeks.
So the outing was no more helpful to the gay and lesbian
agenda than it was to Sipple. Sure, people got to know that a hero was gay, but
that information was meaningful only in its irony.
News media's focus on Sipple's sexuality contributed to the
stereotype that there is something unusual about a man who is both heroic and
homosexual.
Characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender and race
are relevant only if they are thought to carry an element of surprise. Remember
the days of black lawyers and women doctors? Stories about
homosexual heros and lesbian business leaders reflect the same
kind of implicit intolerance.
Mainstream media should not out anyone except elected
officials and candidates for public office. I don't want a homophobic press, nor
do I want one that tells voters that sexual orientation shouldn't matter when
they cast their votes. As a citizen in a representative democracy, I
decide who best represents me and I can make that decision on any basis I
choose. I assume that candidates put forth the picture of themselves they most
want me to see and that their opponents try to do the opposite.
So I depend on the reporters in the fray to tell me whatever
they learn and I depend on them to tell me without arrows or ribbons. When
reporters decide that what they know about a candidate should not make a
difference to me when I cast my vote, they are making decisions that belong to
the voters. No one has ever suggested that only rational voting decisions ought
to be allowed. The reporter's job is to ensure that no candidate advances to
elected office without all his or her discoverable secrets laid bare.
If journalists did this job indiscriminately, we'd all be
better anchored in reality. Candidates could spend less time protecting false
public images; voters could evaluate people who lead, rather than mythical heros
and villains. And news media could spend more time on issues of governance than
on the vulnerabilities of those governing.
Consulting editor Deni Elliott is director of the Ethics
Institute, Dartmouth College.
Source:
FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 3, no. 9 (October
1991), pp. 4-5.
The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's
commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington
Post and the Los Angeles Times.
After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am
still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on
gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the
military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long
after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.
But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the
country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a
billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of
the armed services.
It's no great secret that military studies have proved again
and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought
gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays
were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't
so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays
to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of
implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No
wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called
it "a bit of an old chestnut"
When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to
act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will
be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged
through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe
Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt
to stall the inevitable.
Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely
must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they
say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.
Well, that's just stupid.
Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black
unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership
potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every
man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own
Gen. Colin Powell.
Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated
into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect
our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I
among them - we are still the best and will continue to be.
The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make
in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our
country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now.
I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of
the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the
Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I
think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.
What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise
policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue
- it tries to hide it.
We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying
to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and
denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight
on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business.
The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one
of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's
private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of
the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version
of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.
When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be
allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all
our talent.
If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate
floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens
to be right on this question.
(Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the
Senate in 1987)
