In any public corporation, there’s a small number of people whose jobs are outward-facing, and at the top of the list is always the CEO. He’s the public face of the company; if you see a corporate profile on the cover of a glossy magazine, chances are it will be illustrated with a big picture of the CEO. If you don’t want your face splashed across the world’s media, then you shouldn’t be CEO of a massively valuable company which touches millions of people. Sometimes, as in the case of Mark Zuckerberg, entire movies — and not particularly accurate ones, either — are made about you and your personal life. Reporting that Tim Cook is gay is absolutely nothing, in the invasion-of-privacy stakes, compared to The Social Network. But CEOs, especially CEOs of public companies, are public figures. Their salaries are a matter of public knowledge. When you’re a public figure, you lose a certain amount of privacy. And the higher your profile rises, the more privacy you lose. Tim Cook knows that; he knows that it’s silly to expect to be the CEO of Apple without the world knowing that he’s gay. So let’s stop pretending that we’re not talking about this subject for his sake.
Finally, one critical note I got went so far as to say that “I would think people who are gay don’t care” that Cook is gay. Which is almost hilariously, completely wrong. All the feedback I’ve got indicates, unsurprisingly, that LGBT people really care about this — they care about it a lot, and they want to see it celebrated as widely as possible. It’s perfectly natural to feel pride and joy when a member of your community rises to a position of great success and prominence.
I’ve been incredibly heartened by the thanks I’ve got from gay friends, gay acquaintances, and gay people I’ve never run across before, all saying that they wish there were many more people pushing this line of argument. And I was also heartened, when I talked to John Abell about this yesterday for the video, that he thinks the same way: not only should the media cover Cook’s sexuality in a more matter-of-fact way, but that they will, as well. Cook himself need do nothing.
At the same time, though, I agree with Nicholas Jackson that it would be great if Cook was more open about his sexuality. The glass closet is not an unpleasant place to be. The more transparent the glass, the less likely you are to have people making you uncomfortable by assuming that you’re straight. And at the same time, by never “officially” coming out, you get to avoid having to talk about your sexuality in public — something very few people like to do.
It’s sad and rather silly that gays have to make some kind of formal and official statement about these matters; certainly straights don’t. But without such a statement, as we’ve seen, the media gets cold feet talking about sexuality, and perpetuates the stigma associated with homosexuality. A very common response to my piece from journalists was to question my sourcing: how did I know that Cook is gay? Do I have first-hand knowledge? (No, and if I did, I would never have written my post.) Do I have reliable sources? (No, I’m simply passing on information which is in the public realm, just as I do with dozens of other pieces of information every day.) And isn’t it unethical to talk about something unless you know for sure that it’s true?
What’s unethical, I think, is perpetuating the false idea that Tim Cook is straight — an idea which, it turns out, many people had. One person said it was “disappointing” that I disabused her of that notion. Why she should be disappointed to learn this news I can only guess, I haven’t asked. But honest journalism has to be honest. If I allow you to continue to believe a falsehood, that’s a form of dishonesty. And I, for one, am not comfortable with that.
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