Now admittedly Tim Cook’s sexual identity isn’t any business of yours either. But it’s worth asking who exactly we’re protecting here. Tim Cook hasn’t complained about coverage of his sexuality, but a lot of straight people who don’t know him seem to be very upset about it. It seems a bit like the old attitude of “I don’t care what consenting adults do in private, just so long as they don’t stick it in my face.”
All too often, secrecy surrounding someone’s sexuality is imposed upon that person by the straight society surrounding them. It’s the “I don’t want to hear about it” attitude which reached its nadir in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Many gay professionals — I’m tempted to say most gay professionals, at least outside the creative industries — act very much in line with an implicit policy of don’t-ask-don’t-tell; coming out to co-workers is done individually, on a case-by-case basis, and acts as a sign of deeper friendship and outside-of-work socialization. And it contrasts quite sharply with the overt displays of straight employees who happily plaster their cubicles with photos of their spouses and children or unselfconsciously talk about the attractiveness of members of the opposite sex.
This is irrelevant, so we should ignore it.
Not when ignoring it is the problem. As commenter Hamranhansenetc said on my original post, “what you mean by ‘ignoring Time Cook’s sexuality’ is ‘pretending he is straight.’” It’s rude to do that. And skirting the issue of Cook’s sexuality only encourages and exacerbates that problem. As Hamran continues (you should really read the whole comment, it’s great), “In the larger sense, it does not matter that Tim Cook is gay and not straight. However, it does matter when the media pretend Tim Cook is straight and not gay. And that is what we are talking about here.”
Another commenter, RaidV92C, reacted a rather different way, but just as accurately: “This is not newsworthy, it’s west coast, liberal media, hollywood forcing homosexuality as NORMAL on the general public.” Yes. Exactly. Homosexuality is normal. And people who object to stories which cover an executive’s homosexuality as being as unexceptional as another executive’s wife and children are exactly the people who are winning if no mention is made of Cook’s sexuality.
Do we report that executives are straight?
Yes, all the time, especially when we talk about their families. And more generally straight is the default option — people are assumed to be straight unless we’re told otherwise. No LGBT person likes it when they’re assumed to be straight, but it happens every day.
Isn’t this a salacious invasion of Tim Cook’s privacy?
There is nothing salacious about someone being straight, or being gay. Insofar as you think it’s salacious, that’s because you think that being gay is somehow naughty, or shameful. Is this an invasion of privacy? To a certain extent, yes. More people know more things about Tim Cook now than they did a few weeks ago. That’s what happens when you become the CEO of Apple.
The fundamental question not addressed by the above: Did Tim Cook say that he is gay? If not, it's speculation on someone's private life, and that's just tacky.
#1 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 03:32 PM
It really, really doesn't matter. And conscripting someone to be a part of someone else's crusade is an appalling thing to do. And unfortunately, crusaders tend to wrap themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness, and declare the interests of individuals as irrelevant. Let's just judge Tim on his performance as Steve Jobs' replacment, which is going to be challenge enough.
#2 Posted by Ian, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 07:39 PM
Agree with the other commenters. You never thought to ask Tim what he thinks about it, did you? That speaks volumes.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 08:46 PM
I agree with the other commentators.I don't think you've got a leg to stand on, and I think you know it, otherwise you wouldn't be protesting as much as you are about your stance.
Cook's, or anyone else for that matter, private life is his private life. The only time someone's private life should become newsworthy is if they are caught saying one thing and doing the opposite in their private life (see most members of Congress) or break the law.
This shouldn't be news unless Cook raises it as a point in an interview.
Its just like Lord Browne's sexuality wasn't newsworthy at BP. It was his abject failure to stop BP's well from polluting the US coastline that was newsworthy.
#4 Posted by Paul, CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 03:08 PM
So...
When the topic is the sexuality of a Supreme Court nominee, the bottom line for CJR is "Let’s find something else to obsess about"...
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/politico_kagans_not_gay_story.php
But when the sexuality of a "Wall Street" exec is in question, then it's fair game?
Just the latest stark example of the liberal bias that pervades this "neutral" joke of a publication.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 03:39 PM
"As journalists, however, the media has a responsibility to more than just a company’s shareholders: its responsibility lies to the public as a whole."
Indeed. It lies by omission. It lies by commission. It lies, lies, and lies some more until its favorite evil gets passed as law, elected, exonerated, appointed, etc.
Focusing on the "gay Apple CEO" is another fine way to ignore the legal abuses and moral atrocities being committed by the Obama Administration and the federal govt.
#6 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sun 28 Aug 2011 at 03:07 AM
I still know you are right!
Most of these protesting commenters, in my view, betray their own hysteria about the issue. It just shows why you were correct in writing these pieces, an attempt to dispel the hysteria.
#7 Posted by Domby, CJR on Thu 1 Sep 2011 at 02:39 PM