Michelangelo Signorile on Why Foley Should Have Been OUTED

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 10:40am

A challenging op-ed from today's LA Times:

===

Los Angeles Times

Media Should Have 'Outed' Foley

Reporters could have relieved the disgraced lawmaker's repressed sexuality by revealing his orientation and hypocrisy years ago.

By MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE

October 13, 2006

THE FINGER-POINTING in the Mark Foley scandal has curiously not focused on one particularly powerful player complicit in allowing the Florida Republican to continue his detrimental behavior for years: the American media.

By not reporting on Foley's deceitful life for more than 15 years — during which he portrayed himself as a heterosexual politician — the media enabled a man overwhelmed by the destructiveness of the closet to ultimately implode in the halls of Congress. By looking the other way on something that made them uncomfortable — reporting on closeted gay public figures, particularly those who are hypocrites — and by deluding themselves that it's a privacy issue, reporters, producers and editors took part in perpetuating a fiction, one that may well have led to an ugly outcome.

Well-intentioned people, including gay activists and gay journalists like myself, rightly want to separate Foley's homosexuality from his predatory behavior. Yet in the zeal to make this point, a fundamental issue has been overlooked. Although homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not inherently dangerous, repressed sexuality — whether it's repressed homosexuality or repressed heterosexuality — certainly can be harmful when the dam bursts.

Foley lived in a glass closet in Washington, where many people, we're now being told, assumed he was gay, even as he orchestrated a lie for the voters of his district with help from the media both in Washington and at home in Florida.

Foley's closet wasn't just about protecting his political career. He seemed to be filled with shame. According to one gay man quoted in the Washington Post last week who challenged Foley on his voting for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, Foley justified marginalizing gay marriage by saying, "I could never compare any relationship I have ever had to the nature of my mother and father's relationship."

For Foley, homosexuality meant second-class status.

That kind of self-loathing is bound to play out in harmful ways. Would Foley have made online sexual advances on teenagers if he were openly gay or if he'd been reported on, truthfully, by the media as a gay man long ago, and faced the consequences? It's quite possible the answer is no.

Like Foley, many of the abusive priests who came to light in the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal were not pedophiles — in that they were not preying on prepubescent children. They were abusing teenage boys just shy of the age of consent. It's obvious from their stories that at least some of these men joined the priesthood to suppress their gay sexuality but eventually began to exploit the most vulnerable among people to whom they regularly had access and over whom they had influence.

That scenario is similar to the case of then-closeted Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds in 1982, when it was revealed that he'd had consensual sex with a 17-year-old male page during a summer recess nearly 10 years earlier. Studds is today married (in Massachusetts) to a 48-year-old man with whom he has been coupled since 1991, proof of the stability of being out versus the chaos of the closet. (Studds has also said that being brought out of the closet in the scandal was the "best thing" to happen to him.)

Since the beginning of the debate over "outing" — a term coined by Time magazine amid media outrage over my outing of Malcolm Forbes after he died in 1991 — the media has moved a bit in a positive direction on the issue. But, mostly, reporters still run away from it.

The standard should be simple: If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know. Foley voted for an anti-gay law, which should have been reason enough for the press corps to expose his hypocrisy. When aspects of a public figure's heterosexuality are relevant — past relationships, marriages, children, divorces and the like — the media dutifully report on them, whether or not the subjects approve of such reporting.

Some of these issues point to a politician's character and basic truthfulness, or simply show us how stable a human being the individual may or may not be. Shouldn't we also know if a politician is living a debilitating lie that could bring him or her down?

If homosexuality is to be treated as truly equal to heterosexuality, journalists will have to stop viewing the reporting of a public figure's orientation as "revolting," to quote Foley himself when rumors were raised in 2003. Had the mainstream media followed through on Foley, we might not be experiencing a media and political meltdown now.

Michelangelo Signorile hosts a daily radio program on Sirius satellite radio.
Media Should Have 'Outed' Foley

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 11:40am

Notable, I think, for the no-nonsense clarification of this issue of gay men drawn to older teens. Calling men who lust after young men "pedophiles" is ludicrous. Having a respected gay voice explain such an issue is quite critical to sorting out the debate, and Signorile's discussion here about the priest scandal is illuminating.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 11:51am

I would bet the left one that had Foley been out, this wouldn't have happened. I believe this because of my own experinces in the closet.

The closet allows you to hide both from the world and from yourself. Once you're out, you become responsible and I found myself no longer thrilled with the hook-up because it wasn't a game for me anymore. I had a real life once I came out and I realized I was worth more than I had previously estimated.

And there's ALOT of gay men who aren't the least bit interested in young teens at all.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 12:53pm

I absolutely agree with him.

[DG]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:01pm

"If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know. Foley voted for an anti-gay law, which should have been reason enough for the press corps to expose his hypocrisy. When aspects of a public figure's heterosexuality are relevant — past relationships, marriages, children, divorces and the like — the media dutifully report on them, whether or not the subjects approve of such reporting."

Preach it, Brother!

And, Auggie - I have been waiting and hoping that SOMEONE would address that very issue. It drives me nuts through all the priest scenarios, and it's been driving me nuts during this.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:05pm

Signorile's defense of outing 15 years ago still makes sense. It is hard to believe we are still arguing about it after all these years. Out the hypocrites, I say, and let's put the cards on the table.
I teased my straight friends about National Coming Out day saying "Today you do it on YOUR terms, tomorrow is 'National OUTING Day' and you will do it on OUR terms. I have your Mother's phone number..."

Rather like Halloween being the Devil's night and November 1st being All Saint's Day...

Who is for a National Outing Day?

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:44pm

ridiculous. so he's suggesting that we have gay witch hunts in the name of the greater good? that is revolting. so any politician who chooses not to make his sexuality public should be outed just in case 15 or 20 years down the line he might have been a pedophile.

"The standard should be simple: If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know. Foley voted for an anti-gay law, which should have been reason enough for the press corps to expose his hypocrisy."

this might be a surprise to some people, but not all gay people think exactly alike nor would vote exactly the way one might expect. just as some gay people do not care about legallizing gay marriage today, who is to say what is hypocritical?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:46pm

The only one who ever mentions "witch hunts" around here is you.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:47pm

No, the belief (usually) is that Foley should have been outed when he voted against gay rights. The belief is that people who are hurting the community deserve to be outed.

I agree.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:50pm

really? do you have facts to support that? oh, i forgot, you're not a man of facts - you much prefer false accusations, innuendo, and grand predictions that never come to fruition.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:50pm

McGreevy admitted the fact that part of the reason he did not support Same-sex marriage was he was afraid he would be suspected of being gay.
THAT is when you out someone.
Not when they are just doing business as usual. If they are voting against Gay supportive initiatives and are closeted, they should be outed. Period.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:54pm

i didn't realize that as gays we all had to think alike and vote along (gay) "party lines."

and if mcgreevey had been outed when first suspected of being gay, he never would have made it out of the mayor of woodbridge, nj's office (or possibly into it, for that matter).

edit:
"McGreevy (sic) admitted the fact that part of the reason he did not support Same-sex marriage was he was afraid he would be suspected of being gay.
THAT is when you out someone."

oh, so it's not a gay witch hunt. it's gay blackmail.

Updated On: 10/13/06 at 01:54 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:56pm

I don't think it's about party lines but I have to say, if a person is going to vote on legislation that is designed to marginalize me for choosing not to hide what I am while he hides it and attempts to supress it through legislation, then he deserves to be shown as a hypocrite.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:01pm

You accused me of being Joe McCarthy and conducting a witch hunt just because I suggested that you might have been one of the creators of Brendan Stryker.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:07pm

no, i called you chicken little because the majority of your "sky is falling" political threads never come to pass.

i call you joe mccarthy because you think EVERYONE that does not agree with you is the creator of brendan stryker.

eventually if you throw enough mud pies at the wall, one of them is bound to stick, right?

Updated On: 10/13/06 at 02:07 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:21pm

Well, the sky is not falling for Democrats, only for Republicans--and it's falling fast for them.

And as long as my name is McCarthy...

Were you--or were you not--Brendan Stryker?

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:21pm

We don't have to all think alike, along party lines, or any other way. We don't have to even support each other though we should. But we can't hurt each other, simple as that. And whether you or Jim or Mark don't believe in gay ______, that's fine, just don't screw it up for the rest of us.

Those two didn't support their own communites for selfish reasons.

And if you want to join the party and have sex with us, then don't get upset when we won't keep your secrets for you so you can have your c0ck and eat it too.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:24pm

i was not brendan stryker.

so that just leaves jose', johnboy2, and the host of other people you accuse of being b.s. (ya know those that you don't accuse of being rodney)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:35pm

Oh it's not true about JohnBoy. But it is about Jose and Rodney.

And I'm glad to know you weren't Brendan. I wasn't either (but you knew that already).

And I'm very glad you're feeling better!

yr pal,
Joey

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:35pm

you're a nut.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 3:01pm

Wow, robbO--I never said that I think every gay person should " think alike and vote along (gay) "party lines." "

I understand and respect those who believe outing should never take place. I understand and respect those who feel that the "movement" should focus on other areas than marriage.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 3:33pm

So now on Towleroad.com is a story that the Republican candidate for Governor of Florida is gay.

Discuss.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 3:52pm

and what purpose does that serve in that case? sounds like someone is grasping at straws and might be behind in the polls, so let's accuse the challenger of being gay that many people already know to be gay.

that's my concern with signorile's editorial, that outing will be used to fulfill someone else's agenda. you know, kinda like a gay witch hunt.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 3:56pm

It doesn't count as a witch hunt if they REALLY ARE witches, you know.

Doesn't anyone notice this is a REpublican problem? The Dems aren't searching to root out all the gays are they? No. This is simply a case of the (pun fully intended for Miss Foley) chickens coming homo to roost.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 3:58pm

so, it's okay if the person is actually gay and it destroys his career because of narrowminded voters who don't vote for him now that it is public knowledge that he is gay.

yeah, i like all of his policies, his voting record and his stance on x, y, and z, but he's gay so i'm voting for the other guy. how does that help the gay community?