Did Reporters Shirk Their Responsibility By Not Reporting What They Knew About Mark Foley?
Signorile suggests that the media helped perpetuate a fiction that may have led to Foley's inappropriate behavior with congressional pages – not because Foley is gay, but because his sexuality was repressed. "Although homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not inherently dangerous," he writes, "repressed sexuality — whether it's repressed homosexuality or repressed heterosexuality — certainly can be harmful when the dam bursts."
In The New Republic, meanwhile, Michael Crowley writes about the pressures on gay Republicans in Washington. "For the dozens of gay Republicans on Capitol Hill--including senior aides to some of the most powerful and moralistic members of the House and Senate--the past few weeks have been a nightmare," he writes. "On the right, gay Republicans face the likes of Tony Perkins and Pat Buchanan implying that the so-called 'velvet mafia' enabled Foley's depredations and claiming linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality. On the left, meanwhile, are gay liberals furious over the Bush-era GOP's gay-baiting and increasingly willing to 'out' the Republican regime's closeted enablers--with the help of their tell-all blogs."
There has long been a debate about whether the sexuality of gay politicians, particularly those who take positions some see as contrary to gay interests, should be reported – as well as a debate about whether their staffers should be treated the same way. Signorile argues that the solution is simple: "If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know," he writes. "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."
Most members of the press corps, however, are uncomfortable reporting on the private life of a politician or staffer – at least if he or she is gay. The mainstream media, at least, tend to view a politician or staffer's homosexuality as a private matter, though there have been cases in which the press has outed politicians, or at least come close. (As TNR points out, Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe came out in 1996 because The Advocate, a gay magazine, was about to tell the world he is gay.)
Blogs have changed the game, since it now takes nothing more than one in-the-know citizen with a blogspot account to post the names of allegedly gay politicians and staffers for all the world to see. (And that's exactly what a Washingtonian named Michael Rogers has been doing.) Now that the media are no longer gatekeepers of information, it's unlikely that someone like Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy's homosexual, gay-bashing staffer, could go about his business without anyone bringing up his private life. One could certainly argue that's a good thing. But there is something to the notion that a person shouldn't necessarily have to expose his or her private life just because he or she works in politics.
The press corps, and bloggers, face a choice in the wake of the Foley matter. Do they impose standards based on what they think is hypocrisy – that is, let a closeted politician whose public positions are gay-friendly have his privacy, but expose one takes positions they deem anti-gay? Do they instead report on private lives regardless of politics? Or do they - and this one's not going to happen, but let's throw it out there anyway - let private lives stay private, regardless of whether or not the issue is homosexuality?