🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Rumors about the sexuality of Sen. Larry Craig date back many years, and at least one blog claimed months ago that the senator had sex with other men in public restrooms. But mainstream media didn't touch the story until Craig was arrested during a police sting operation targeting public sex. NEWSWEEK asked two gay journalists to discuss the Craig case as it relates to "outing" public officials. Chris Crain is the former editorial director of Window Media, where he oversaw editorial content at gay publications in New York, Houston, Washington and other cities. Michelangelo Signorile was the co-founding editor of the now-defunct OutWeek, which generated controversy in 1990 with a story reporting on the homosexuality of the recently deceased Malcolm Forbes. Here are excerpts of their conversation:
NEWSWEEK: Sen. Larry Craig said he isn't gay and has never had a gay relationship. But some activists have argued for some time that Craig is a closet homosexual, and the Idaho Statesman reported this week that Craig once engaged in homosexual activity in a Washington, D.C., restroom. How should this latest arrest affect the media's coverage? And what is the public's right to know?
Michelangelo Signorile: Hopefully this story will give news organizations the confidence to pursue similar stories about other public figures when relevant. True, the story didn't break until it became easy and unavoidable: a police report and a guilty plea to a crime. But the Idaho Statesman had been working on a story about Sen. Craig's life vs. his anti-gay political rhetoric and actions for months, interviewing people about Craig's sexual activities. When reporter Dan Popkey interviewed me, I advised him that for this particular story he should get more on-the-record sourcing; obviously his editors agreed because they didn't run the story until Roll Call went public about the arrest and guilty plea. I imagine that if Popkey had worked on the story longer, that sourcing would have come through. Let's not forget that Craig was arrested a month after he was interviewed by Popkey [in May] and presented with a tape recording of a man who said he had sex with Craig in a Union Station restroom in Washington, D.C. Craig denied it profusely, as his wife, sitting next to him, cried and called it "trash." But a month later there was Craig in the airport bathroom in Minneapolis. So he'd not only likely lied when confronted but also would likely have provided further evidence for the reporter in the future.
Had Popkey been working on this story earlier—the rumors had been around for years, decades—his sourcing likely would have been nailed down much sooner and we might have seen a story earlier, independent of the arrest. And no question, it should have been done ages ago. But this is still progress: Popkey began investigating Craig after he was outed by activist Michael Rogers on BlogActive.com, asking Craig about the Web claims and then pursuing them further when Craig issued a denial. In the past, the media would not even have asked him about it, let alone begin an investigation. I think reporters, editors and news producers are gradually seeing the importance and the relevance of looking into this issue with regard to public figures. If people are going to make other people's lives into campaign issues by promoting "family values," then it is right to look into issues relevant to their own lives.
Chris Crain: The Idaho Statesman investigation is illustrative of what the media will be doing if they heed to the demands of the "outing" activists. Reporter Dan Popkey spent months tracking down the leads of a blogger who went public with claims that Craig was gay based on three sources—two of whom the blogger knew only by first name, and a third that Popkey eventually trailed, who remembers 13 "or so" years ago having sex with Craig at a public toilet, even though Craig didn't identify himself. To get that "newsworthy" information, Popkey spent months interviewing anyone familiar with gay life in Washington, D.C., including me, asking questions about where closeted men cruise for sex. This is a witch hunt, not legitimate journalism, and it's only figuratively different than the airport policeman in Minneapolis who had the unfortunate assignment of sitting in a toilet stall for extended periods waiting for a neighbor to start tapping his feet suspiciously.
I'm no defender of public sex, but "outing" activists don't limit their call for such media probes to cases like Craig's. As editor of the Washington Blade, I turned down a story offered by these activists who claimed they had a tape recording of a member of Congress who had placed an ad on a phone-sex network. Mike Rogers eventually released the tape, and the member of Congress withdrew from his race for re-election (to be replaced in office by someone just as conservative). Closeted gay men aren't the only targets of these outing activists. They will go after anyone whose private sex life is, according to them, inconsistent with their public views. In some cases, "outing" activists including you, Mike, have gone after nonpoliticians and even openly gay and pro-gay public figures if their private sex lives are deemed inconsistent with their public views. Anonymous ads on online sex sites have been exposed, and the claims of alleged past sex partners have been sought and published. These activists have no boundaries when it comes to the private sex lives of public figures, and they would drag the media into the bedrooms, toilets and phone-sex chat lines with them. It's not legitimate journalism, it invades the privacy of public figures, and (whether they realize it or not) it smears gay people generally by reinforcing the idea that we're all out there furtively looking for anonymous sex.
Signorile: For me, this is all about journalism and equalizing the reporting of homosexuality and heterosexuality. For that reason, no, I do not believe this is only about politicians nor only about those like Craig who have done some kind of harm. That would in fact be making it into a weapon or a tool, or holding people to a litmus test, as you imply of some. There are a wide range of views on this among those who might say they favor "outing"—and I have always hated that word, a violent, active verb coined by a Time magazine writer. Some people adhere only to the hypocrisy test; others, like me, are about normalizing sexual orientation in journalism and not keeping homosexuality as the dirty little secret while heterosexuality is glamorized. For me, a public figure's homosexuality should be reported on when relevant to a larger story, just as when heterosexuality is reported on or asked about whenever relevant.
Let me give you an example: Hollywood celebrities who are straight are always asked by entertainment reporters about their sexual orientation when they play a gay role—they're asked what they bring to the role, how they prepared, etc. Their heterosexuality is discussed and asked about—and this is often true when they're playing a heterosexual role, too. A few years back, Greg Louganis, before he was out, was playing a role off-Broadway as a gay man with AIDS. And a sports columnist at the Times felt he had to ask the question: "What do you bring to this role as a gay person?" Certainly, it was something to discuss in the context of the role and of this public figure playing the role. Louganis was free to freeze up and not respond, as he did, which was his choice—but the question was asked; the reporter did his job.
When it comes to politicians, people making laws against people, the issues are much more acute—and certainly the relevancy test applies. Rep. Edward Shrock of Virginia, whom Chris refers to, was an anti-gay Republican who railed against gays in the military. And yet, he's reportedly leaving messages looking for sex with men on phone-sex lines. It's pretty clear cut for any journalist. As far as the idea that revealing that kind of thing reinforces gay stereotypes, well, it's not my job nor Chris's to dress up the gay community and make it look all shiny and pretty. Leave that to the PR people at Human Rights Campaign and other groups. It's our jobs as journalists to report the truth when relevant. AIDS didn't make gays look good either, but we needed to get the facts out. This is not about homosexuality anyway—it's about homophobia and the closet, and that's why it's important that the message get out. It's important for us to expose what the closet and homophobia does to people. Larry Craig is the perfect example of its destruction.
Crain: I agree entirely with Mike about equalizing the standard applied by journalists in dealing with sexual orientation when it comes to reporting on public figures. For years before the Mark Foley scandal broke, he was regularly seen in public in Washington and West Palm Beach with his longtime partner, a respected physician. The media—gay and straight, with the exception of the publications I edited—largely ignored the public facts they knew about that relationship because Foley had not chosen to "come out." I would agree with Mike that it's not "outing" Foley to report his public appearances, ask him "the question" and print his response. If Larry Craig (before his arrest) or Ed Schrock had been engaging in public conduct like Foley, then absolutely it would have been fair game to report. But there is a huge difference between bringing your long-term partner to Washington cocktail parties and recording an ad on a phone-sex line. Both are technically "public," since anyone could call the chat line and hear his voice, but most people would agree that the latter is within a zone of personal privacy that ought to be respected by the media, even for public figures.
I also agree with Mike that it's not the responsibility of journalists, gay or straight, to "dress up" gay men to look respectable to the general public. At the same time, an unfortunate side effect of reporting on sex scandals and "respecting the privacy" of long-term gay relationships is that the public only learns about the Mark Foleys (or George Michaels, to give an entertainment example) of the world when they are mired in scandal. And they never learn about happily coupled closet cases because they're never mired in scandal. That is the media's fault because their double standard is bad journalism, and has the effect of stereotyping gay men.
Where Mike and I differ is on just how far the media should go when it comes to prying into a politician or other public figure's personal life. If we agree the standard should be the same, then I would argue that the media does not (and should not) troll airport toilets and phone-sex chat lines looking for gay or straight members of Congress cheating on their spouses, whatever their voting record or "family values" posturing.
Signorile: We agree that the media helped Foley to maintain his glass closet. But Larry Craig's life was an open secret for many years, as well. One could argue that he had in fact outed himself in 1982 when he dramatically fueled the persistent gay rumors by bizarrely issuing a denial regarding media reports of unnamed members of Congress having sex with male pages—even though he'd not been publicly implicated in the reports! (The page scandal finally broke the following year, outing Rep. Gerry Studds, but Craig wasn't named in it at all). Craig whined on about how "single" people like him were open to this kind of "despicable" innuendo (and he got married within a few years). That was sort of like his Gary Hart moment, daring the media to now find out the truth, wouldn't you say?
Whether it is restroom sex or online posting or phone-sex lines, as you say, these are public places. No one forces you to leave messages on telephone hook-up lines, like Schrock allegedly did, but if you do and you're a public figure and you meet people through those messages—or meet people in public rest rooms—then the people you meet are actually able to identify you at that point and they do have every right to speak freely about their own lives and their own associations.
I realize your point is about whether journalists should be investigating public figures on phone-sex lines or in restrooms. But with political figures who are vocally anti-gay and deeply closeted, it really is the only way, and it is a very important story to tell. Such factors should be weighed, on a case-by-case basis.
Crain: I think our disagreement about "outing" boils down to whether we respect the privacy of a public figure's sex life. I disagree that online hookup sites and chat rooms and phone-sex lines are "public," and I'm confident that 99.9 percent of the people (male and female, gay and straight) who use them would disagree with you, as well. It strikes me that you are really rationalizing a justification for invading those spaces because, as you say, they're the only places you can go to get the goods on a closet case. But the end doesn't justify the means. The gay rights movement is, in part, about protecting the right to privacy in the choice of consensual sex and romantic partners. It would be quite a queer path to equality if we must violate that very right of our opponents to prove them wrong.
Signorile: As I explained, there is no such thing as "outing"—it is reporting. What I am doing and have done over the years is no different from what other journalists do in reporting on heterosexuals and their relationships when relevant to a larger news event. We don't call that "outing"—we call it reporting.
As homosexuality becomes more acceptable in society, discussing public figures as gay becomes more acceptable. The two are inextricably tied together. What you call outing will only become bigger, especially as anyone can set up a blog and do their thing. Meanwhile, people who aspire to live in the public eye will realize they have to live honestly and openly, and that is happening in Hollywood (Neil Patrick Harris, T. R. Knight, etc.) as well as Washington these days.
Crain: There's no question that the progress we see in how lesbians and gay men are treated in society will result in fewer public figures (and regular folk) choosing to live in the closet, but I'm betting there will never come a day when some of those who pontificate on sexual morality live lives inconsistent with their rhetoric. Hypocrisy is human, and sexual hypocrisy is probably among the most common variety.