Tim Cook is now the most powerful gay man in the world. This is newsworthy, no? But you won’t find it reported in any legacy/mainstream outlet. And when the FT‘s Tim Bradshaw did no more than broach the subject in a single tweet, he instantly found himself fielding a barrage of responses criticizing him from so much as mentioning the subject. Similarly, when Gawker first reported Cook’s sexuality in January, MacDailyNews called their actions “petty, vindictive, and just plain sad.”
But surely this is something we can and should be celebrating, if only in the name of diversity — that a company which by some measures the largest and most important in the world is now being run by a gay man. Certainly when it comes to gay role models, Cook is great: he’s the boring systems-and-processes guy, not the flashy design guru, and as such he cuts sharply against stereotype. He’s like Barney Frank in that sense: a super-smart, powerful and non-effeminate man who shows that being gay is no obstacle to any career you might want.
One of the issues here is that most news outlets cover Cook as part of their Apple story, and Cook’s sexuality is irrelevant to his role at Apple. And so the other story — the fact that the ranks of big-company CEOs have just become significantly more diverse — is being overlooked and ignored. And that’s bad for the gay and lesbian community more broadly.
The institution of the closet is one of fear — one where people would rather be ignored than noticed, because they fear the negative repercussions of being known to be gay. It’s an institution which Cook, like any gay man born in 1960, knows at first hand. But now the risk of being ignored is bigger in the other direction: if the world can’t see gay men and women in all their true diversity, if the only homosexuals they know of are the flamboyant ones on TV, then that only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
As the Apple story moves away from being about Steve Jobs and becomes much more about Tim Cook, we’re going to see a lot of coverage of Cook, the man. He is, after all, not just one of the most powerful gay men in the world; he’s one of the most powerful people in the world, period. The first instinct of many journalists writing about Cook will be to ignore the issue of his sexuality. It’s not germane to his job, they’re only writing about him because of the job he holds, and therefore they shouldn’t write about it.
On top of that, Cook is not exactly open about his sexuality, and Apple has never said anything about it. Cook’s formative years, professionally speaking, were the 12 years he spent at IBM between 1982 and 1994 — and at that company, in those days, coming out was contraindicated from a career-development perspective. Mike Fuller, a gay VP at IBM, told The Advocate in 2001 that he knew “IBM employees who worked for the company in the 1980s who told me they left IBM because they weren’t comfortable coming out at work”; this comes as little surprise. After all, the years that Cook spent at straight-laced IBM coincided with the height of the AIDS panic, when people were worried about sharing toilet seats with homosexuals. It would be hard to come out at any company in that kind of atmosphere.
But thankfully we’ve moved a very long way from those days. Homosexuality is no longer something shameful, to be coy or secretive about — especially not when you’ve risen to the very top of your profession. In fact, it’s incumbent upon a public-company CEO not to be in the closet.

I don't care if it's shameful or people are shouting it from the rooftops. Unless the person in question volunteers to be a affiliated with a particular group, you have no right to draft him. Tim Cook has not volunteered his sexual orientation. Therefore, we should STFU about it.
Declaring oneself anything, is a right left to the individual. You have no right to declare Tim Cook gay, even if you do it in praise.
#1 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 08:24 PM
If someone came up to me in this day and age and said "Hey, did you know so-and-so is gay?" I would think he's an idiot. This is thousands of times worse because you're splashing it across the media.
In fact, your reporting is a big step backward for gay rights. What you, essentially, are saying is that if you're gay (or if I think you are gay) you have no right to your sexual privacy.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 08:33 PM
This is slimy, yellow journalism at its worst.
The public is not entitled to examine Mr. Cook's sex life until and unless he makes a public issue of it.
Mr. Salmon should be ashamed of this garbage.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 28 Aug 2011 at 09:37 AM
Unlike the naysayers above, I find myself in complete agreement with you. I am wondering why the above commenters not only disagree with you but disagree so vehemently?
#4 Posted by Domby, CJR on Sun 28 Aug 2011 at 01:00 PM
If the new Apple chief were a woman or African-American or physically disabled (or any number of things), wouldn't that be worth noting? I had not heard Cook was gay (is it a secret? an open secret? common knowledge? I don't know), but I don't see how there's anything wrong with mentioning it.
#5 Posted by canmark, CJR on Mon 29 Aug 2011 at 02:38 PM
I could imagine this being a newsworthy deal if he'd been subject to election etc. but he's just a CEO. What, is Apple going to become a homosexual-preferred company? Is there going to be an alternate Mac OS?
#6 Posted by Adam C., CJR on Mon 29 Aug 2011 at 11:11 PM
The only thing is... Is this guy's not homosexual... At least not that anyone knows. As Felix admits.
This "outing" BS is scum-bucket non journalism dished up to pander to the gay empowerment junkies...
And in most states, it's also defamation per se.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 29 Aug 2011 at 11:33 PM
i agree with those who consider the rationale for discussing a persons's sexuality as worth mentioning in and of itself to be stupid and vile. The reasoning, moreover, is primitive. I am jewish, others are mormon, still others catholic, protestant, baha'i, whatever, and if my religious affiliation, or someone else's, were to be treated as important in and of itself without an intrinsic motivation in the storyline, I would be disgusted.
The childish reasoning also shows up in analogizing to the situation of black and women, who, whether that part of their identities is important or not to the matter at hand, have far less opportunity to decided whether to make it visible.
Ditto to joe Clark, if that reductivecallout is representative of his position.
to domby: praps the vehemence, should there be any, stems from the mock piety of outing someone who may not have chosen to make an issue of his sexual orientation — and might not be gay. I , in turn, wonder what you meant by characterizing the objections as 'vehement.'
#8 Posted by marthar, CJR on Thu 1 Sep 2011 at 03:52 PM
Good for Cook and good for gays. It's 2011. Let's get over it.
#9 Posted by Keith Roberts, CJR on Fri 2 Sep 2011 at 01:51 PM