aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Monday, February 28, 2005
More on ‘Outing’
David Corn is no friend of “Jeff Gannon.” He has, however, written the definitive position piece on the topic, at least so far as two popular conservative bloggers are concerned. (One gay, the other one not.) Thus I feel compelled to return to the topic I had laid to rest a couple weeks back.
Corn tells us that because “Jeff Gannon” was hardly a flame thrower, he’s no hypocrite:
Gannon/Guckert clearly was writing for a conservative audience. But he was hardly a flame-thrower on gay issues. His observation about Kerry was clumsy but not homophobic. Sure, he worked for an organization that supported an administration and party opposed to gay rights, and he was a Bush-backer. But does that automatically qualify him for outing?
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! The hypocrisy here is not in the product he puts out but in the fact that he works for an anti-gay organization and in favor of the anti-gay policies of an anti-gay administration. If he can keep it a secret, fine by me. But if I find out, it’s in my interest for the world to know.
Why? Because I want to normalize gay in every way. The closet never was and is no longer a normal place. Gay people are everywhere and in every walk of life. And I want everyone to know it. The stakes here are rather high. Dare I point out that the volume of anti-gay rhetoric has been heightened by the administration’s courting of its religiously conservative base?
Should a lesbian reporter who works at the Wall Street Journal or at any metropolitan daily that editorializes against gay marriage be outed? Reporters are not elected officials. They do not legislate the behavior of others.
Uh, yeah! As a rule, anti-gay marriage is anti-gay. And culturally speaking, reporters, journalists, and the pundit class have an even greater influence over the attitudes and behavior of others than do politicians.
One site has used the Gannon/Guckert affair to float unsubstantiated rumors about the sex life of Scott McClellan. This is fair game--but only for journalistic investigation, not for throw-it-and-see-if-it-sticks postings. If there is evidence that McClellan is a gay GOP hypocrite or that Gannon/Guckert had an advantage because he was literally in bed with a White House official, that’s a news story. Otherwise, it’s smear-by-blogging.
Here I can agree that the story went too far. I’d have stopped with the anonymous accounts of McClellan’s visits to gay bars in Texas in the mid-90s. There are two sources. For me, that’s enough. I’m chagrined that the Mainstream Media sometimes get by with only one these days. As for McClellan as a target, see “hypocrisy” above.
And, no, being in a gay bar doesn’t make you gay. We all know that the best clubs are the gay clubs. But being in a gay bar and working for the anti-gay policies of an anti-gay administration makes you a a hypocrite.
Once Gannon/Guckert became an issue, his past--or present--as a male hooker was newsworthy, at least in a descriptive sense. But as a line of attack against him, it may be too much. I recognize this distinction might be hard to draw. But he has been hounded for being a gay male hooker. Should we even care if a reporter is moonlighting on the side in this fashion? I don’t--let Helen Thomas be a professional dominatrix in her free time--unless that reporter explicitly claims to be a person of family values or publicly decries homosexuality or prostitution. I have not seen evidence that Gannon/Guckert struck such a stance.
Uh, last I checked, prostitution was illegal. I’d say here the bloggers have built a pretty convincing case that the guy was engaged in an illegal activity.
Gannon/Guckert and Talon ought to have been vetted more closely regarding their journalistic credentials. But I will not gripe if the White House press office decides it is not its job to investigate the personal lives and websites of those who apply for access to the press room.
Er, private? Personal? In fact, everything known about him comes from material he posted on public Web sites. I thought those background checks were pretty stringent? They rejected Maureen Dowd for crying out loud!
Talon News was a fly-by-night (or phony) news operation with a political agenda. But White House daily briefings should be open to as diverse a group as possible. There is a need for professional accreditation; space is limited. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing journalists with identifiable biases to pose questions to the White House press secretary and even the president.
I agree. I’m not complaining about his bias. I am complaining about the special treatment, and I consider a day pass day in and day out for two years special treatment. Someone find another instance of it. Ever. Now why did he get special treatment? I can only assume it’s for his bias.
It’s certainly embarrassing to the Bush White House that its press operation accepted a reporter who was an actual or wannabe prostitute. But this is not the same as paying columnists to shill for the administration, producing pro-administration propaganda packaged as news reports, mounting fake town meetings, or restricting the number of press conferences.
Hey, I say it is. Not precisely, not the same in degree, but surely of the same ilk; another instance in a pattern of behavior that stinks.
Note: Like last time this post is subject to edit. This is a first draft I’ll want to tweak for style, clarity and typos, and maybe even to strengthen my argument. I will mull it over ‘til tomorrow, then stamp it final and let it be.
Final.
Note: I answer Basil’s comment below here.
