Another Perspective On the Foley Scandal
[Note: I'm back! The crucial part of the move will be over today, which means that I will be using blogging to escape from the horrors of dozens of packing boxes. I will be forever grateful to Ruth for the terrific job she did in keeping the lights on here. I just hope you folks won't miss her too much! Let me know if you do, though. We just might be able to work something out.]
I left on moving hiatus just before the North Korean's nuclear detonation blew the Foley story off the front pages. The story may not be as prominent a news story as it was when it first broke, but it is still resonating all over the country because it's an election year and the cover-up has given the Democratic candidates a perfect example of how the GOP Congressional leadership operates.
On October 13, I took a break from packing by reading a rather provocative op-ed piece by Michelangelo Signorile in the Los Angeles Times. He finds another place to lay some blame for Representative Foley's despicable behavior.
THE FINGER-POINTING in the Mark Foley scandal has curiously not focused on one particularly powerful player complicit in allowing the Florida Republican to continue his detrimental behavior for years: the American media.
By not reporting on Foley's deceitful life for more than 15 years — during which he portrayed himself as a heterosexual politician — the media enabled a man overwhelmed by the destructiveness of the closet to ultimately implode in the halls of Congress. By looking the other way on something that made them uncomfortable — reporting on closeted gay public figures, particularly those who are hypocrites — and by deluding themselves that it's a privacy issue, reporters, producers and editors took part in perpetuating a fiction, one that may well have led to an ugly outcome.
Well-intentioned people, including gay activists and gay journalists like myself, rightly want to separate Foley's homosexuality from his predatory behavior. Yet in the zeal to make this point, a fundamental issue has been overlooked. Although homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not inherently dangerous, repressed sexuality — whether it's repressed homosexuality or repressed heterosexuality — certainly can be harmful when the dam bursts.
...Like Foley, many of the abusive priests who came to light in the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal were not pedophiles — in that they were not preying on prepubescent children. They were abusing teenage boys just shy of the age of consent. It's obvious from their stories that at least some of these men joined the priesthood to suppress their gay sexuality but eventually began to exploit the most vulnerable among people to whom they regularly had access and over whom they had influence.
The standard should be simple: If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know. 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.
Some of these issues point to a politician's character and basic truthfulness, or simply show us how stable a human being the individual may or may not be. Shouldn't we also know if a politician is living a debilitating lie that could bring him or her down? [Emphasis added]
I must admit that I felt uncomfortable upon first reading Mr. Signorile's argument. Is the public really served by outing people who have chosen to keep their sexuality private? On further reflection, however, I am pretty much in agreement with him. Gerry Studds and Barney Frank have showed that openly gay people can get elected to political office and can make important contributions to government. Furthermore, once an individual declares for public office, that person has opened his or her life to public scrutiny as that individual's fitness for public office is assessed by the electorate.
Yes, the press has to reassess how to deal with this issue, just as both parties' leadership has to. Sunshine is a remarkable curative.
I left on moving hiatus just before the North Korean's nuclear detonation blew the Foley story off the front pages. The story may not be as prominent a news story as it was when it first broke, but it is still resonating all over the country because it's an election year and the cover-up has given the Democratic candidates a perfect example of how the GOP Congressional leadership operates.
On October 13, I took a break from packing by reading a rather provocative op-ed piece by Michelangelo Signorile in the Los Angeles Times. He finds another place to lay some blame for Representative Foley's despicable behavior.
THE FINGER-POINTING in the Mark Foley scandal has curiously not focused on one particularly powerful player complicit in allowing the Florida Republican to continue his detrimental behavior for years: the American media.
By not reporting on Foley's deceitful life for more than 15 years — during which he portrayed himself as a heterosexual politician — the media enabled a man overwhelmed by the destructiveness of the closet to ultimately implode in the halls of Congress. By looking the other way on something that made them uncomfortable — reporting on closeted gay public figures, particularly those who are hypocrites — and by deluding themselves that it's a privacy issue, reporters, producers and editors took part in perpetuating a fiction, one that may well have led to an ugly outcome.
Well-intentioned people, including gay activists and gay journalists like myself, rightly want to separate Foley's homosexuality from his predatory behavior. Yet in the zeal to make this point, a fundamental issue has been overlooked. Although homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not inherently dangerous, repressed sexuality — whether it's repressed homosexuality or repressed heterosexuality — certainly can be harmful when the dam bursts.
...Like Foley, many of the abusive priests who came to light in the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal were not pedophiles — in that they were not preying on prepubescent children. They were abusing teenage boys just shy of the age of consent. It's obvious from their stories that at least some of these men joined the priesthood to suppress their gay sexuality but eventually began to exploit the most vulnerable among people to whom they regularly had access and over whom they had influence.
The standard should be simple: If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know. 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.
Some of these issues point to a politician's character and basic truthfulness, or simply show us how stable a human being the individual may or may not be. Shouldn't we also know if a politician is living a debilitating lie that could bring him or her down? [Emphasis added]
I must admit that I felt uncomfortable upon first reading Mr. Signorile's argument. Is the public really served by outing people who have chosen to keep their sexuality private? On further reflection, however, I am pretty much in agreement with him. Gerry Studds and Barney Frank have showed that openly gay people can get elected to political office and can make important contributions to government. Furthermore, once an individual declares for public office, that person has opened his or her life to public scrutiny as that individual's fitness for public office is assessed by the electorate.
Yes, the press has to reassess how to deal with this issue, just as both parties' leadership has to. Sunshine is a remarkable curative.
posted by Diane at 4:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home