Did the media go too far with exposing Larry Craig? Some say yes, a man’s private life should remain private. Others disagree – an anti-gay politician deserves to be exposed.
Two of the most vocal journalists in this debate, Michelangelo Signorile and Chris Crain, faced off yesterday to discuss the ins-and-outs of Lewd Larry’s newly dissected life…
A well-known proponent of outing – a word he loathes – Signorile says Michael Rogers and The Idaho Statesman had every right to pry into Craig’s closet:
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.
Many people frame this debate in terms of hypocrisy. Signorile says, however, that he’s more interested in “normalizing” media coverage of gays. “[I’m] about normalizing sexual orientation in journalism and not keeping homosexuality as the dirty little secret while heterosexuality is glamorized. Signorile’s certainly got a point. As most of us know first hand, heterosexuality’s the national sexual default. It’s discussed as if it’s as natural as breathing. Signorile would like to see queers discussed in just the same way. And so would Chris Crain, but not at such a high cost.
Crain views the issue in terms of privacy rights: rights gays have fought for, particularly with regard to sodomy-laws. “Activist” journalists not only violate people’s privacy, they harm gay communities.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
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.
Crain goes on to explain that we only hear about sex-driven scandals, not happily settled queer couples. And he’s right. The media lives on sensationalism. This sensationalism can perpetuate negative stereotypes of gay men.
Both Crain and Signorile concur, however, that these depictions aren’t entirely the media’s responsibility. Signorile:
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.
Like so many “gay” debates, this can be boiled down to the closet. In that reduction, however, Craig and others’ sexualities become one homogeneous blob. As we’ve seen, Craig’s isn’t an essentially gay issue. Perhaps the issue isn’t “homosexuality,” but sexuality in general.
Regardless of the sexual semantics, Signorile and Crain converge on the closet. The more homosexuality’s discussed, they say, the easier it will be for people to come out. The debate’s not soley about rights to privacy or political tricks. It’s about how our country deals with so-called sexual deviance. We’ve already had one sexual revolution. Perhaps it’s time for another?
No matter how many times we revisit sexuality, however, Crain – gulp – makes an excellent point in his closing remark:
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.
And it makes a great headline.
allstarecho
“Others disagree – an anti-gay politician deserves to be exposed.”
No, but an anti-gay politician *that engages in gay sex* definitely deserves to be exposed.
thwtoronto
When you are a politician making laws that affect this country, and you are targeting individuals and basing your decision on their personal life, then its only fair that your personal life should be examined too. Maybe now they will realize that what goes on in someones bedroom is not worth debating and making laws for, and should focus on import stuff like healthcare, education, and foreign policy.
If he was an honest man there would not be any problem. But instead he choose to vote for anti gay laws and turns out that he is a truck-stop cruising queer himself. I like it when hypocrite politicians and religious figures are outed and THEN see the error in their ways. Now they can see what it feels like.
Dawster
exposed? hell yeah. beating a dead horse until there is nothing left but mush and fibers? NO.
should he be attacked and talked about? yeah. should it be considered more important than Alberto Gonzales or the war in Iraq? not really.
i posted on another site that i saw 3 times on CNN yesterday where the question was posed by views on how someone could be arrested for not committing a crime, and why was this such a big deal since the crime was up to the interpretation of the cop.
the hosts (two different ones for two different shows) both said it was about intent and then they broke into commercial… three times!
the media plays to the scandal, even when the scandal is pretty weak… and this really wasn’t that big of a scandal, honestly… no one even knew who Larry Craig was, and the fact is he really didn’t do anything in the men’s room. it was just something they used to stir ratings.
same thing with Don Imus.
Same thing with Bob Allen.
but when someone like Jim Naugle gets anti-gay or Tucker Carlson admits to gay bashing… is there 24/7 media coverage?
no.
underbear1
But we can all agree the lying little f*cktard Tucker must be STOPPED.
Redbear4
Who wants to have to be bothered by toilet queens when you go to use a public restroom? The police have every right to arrest these jerks, and then it becomes public record. In Senator Craig’s case, it was the leadership of his own party that went ballistic on him. This incident made them all look like fools.
Gregg
PLEADED GUILTY. With those 2 little words, Craig lost any right to expect privacy about the issue. He is a senator and he pleaded guilty to a crime. How is it an invasion of privacy to expose that?
We can argue about entrapment by the cops. About the ridiculousness of being arrested for tapping a foot. But Craig entered a guilty plea. Public record and fair game for the media!
ProfessorVP
There’s much confusion here and elsewhere about what is and isn’t a crime. Something is not “not a crime” merely because we think it is not important enought to be a crime, or there are more serious things to think about. Some of the things I have been reading are really childish- what with Iraq, global warming, Alberto Gonzalez, etc., there are more serious things going on, therefore what Craig did “is not a crime.” That’s not how it works.
Craig was charged with two crimes, and they are indeed crimes in Minneapolis and a lot of other municipalities. 1) “Peeping,” “Lewdness,” or “Invasion of Privacy.” That is the crime Craig committed when he bumped feet with the officer and put his hand into the officer’s stall. 2) “Disturbing the Peace” – engaging in an act (it doesn’t have to be fucking or sucking) that is heard and viewed by others as to be obscene enough to cause a disturbance in public.
In exchange for letting Larry catch his flight and not appear in court to plead not guilty, the first charge was dropped and Craig pled guilty to the second. These are not my opinions of what should or should not be illegal. This is exactly what happened, folks. Craig broke two laws, pled guilty to breaking one law, and now has a criminal record.