Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  TROLLING PART 2

The New York Times Is Inadvertently Outing Aaron Schock Again

aaron-schock-gettyimagesThe New York Times has finally discovered the shirtless and casually homoerotic photos GOP Congressman Aaron Schock has been posting on Instagram, and in true Times fashion, is talking about it four weeks after it was an actual story.

Nothing to see here, except for the fact that the Times is once again suggesting that Schock is a closeted homosexual without actually saying it.

In lieu of an actual investigation, the non-story about Schock’s “Popular Instagram Persona” points to several male admirers lusting in the comments section:

The photos of him shirtless have garnered the most attention. Never shy about peeling off his clothes, as he did for Men’s Health a few years back, Mr. Schock has posted shots of himself surfing in Hawaii and sliding down a sand dune on a wooden plank and splashing into the water.

6a00d8341c730253ef01a73dafc7cc970d“Ride it, baby,” a man from New York wrote. Another man commented, “Rawr!” Someone with an anonymous profile wrote, “URGH marry me you fiscally conservative stud you.” (Mr. Schock has said that he is not gay.)

Gawker’s J.K. Trotter points out that this isn’t the first time the Times has thrown Schock under the bus without actually doing so, but it is the first speculative article that actually prints his name:

When a former CBS News freelancer alluded to Schock’s sexuality in a January post on Facebook—and the subsequent discussion became too large for the Times to ignore—the paper refused to print Schock’s name. It did, however, describe (without linking to) the very same Instagram account, “which included photos of him lifting weights at the gym and following the newly out diver Tom Daley,” on which today’s report is based.

In the comments section of Gawker’s post, Trotter writes: “Wasn’t saying the Times shouldn’t out Aaron Schock. But if they’re going to write about his sexuality, they should write about his sexuality, instead of waving their hands in its direction with articles based on the testimony of Instagram commenters.”

We’re gonna have to agree with Gawker on this one, and even go a step further to wonder if someone is possibly funding a “Don’t Out Aaron Schock” policy at the Times

By:           Matthew Tharrett
On:           May 23, 2014
Tagged: , , ,

  • 13 Comments
    • sportyguy1983
      sportyguy1983

      Posting shirtless pics makes you gay? Interesting. I would thought it just makes a narcissist and a millennial.

      May 23, 2014 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gjg64
      gjg64

      If they are going to write about it then they should point out his anti-gay voting record and comments.

      May 23, 2014 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ McFrisky
      BJ McFrisky

      The way he’s gossiped about by the Queens of the Left, it’s no wonder he’d want to remain closeted.

      May 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tookietookie123
      Tookietookie123

      @sportyguy1983: Well if you’ve got it, flaunt it. What I do find strange is the fact that he knows very well who follows him and it doesn’t at the least make him uncomfortable, I guess he likes gay guys fawning over his rather muscular body. I find it hard to believe that a republican who is against marriage equality and wants a federal ban on gay marriage would be okay with that.

      May 23, 2014 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mezaien
      Mezaien

      Only nincompoops read the New York Times.

      May 23, 2014 at 7:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sportyguy1983
      sportyguy1983

      Narcissists (attention seekers) are in both political parties. They have the need for people to compliment them on how they look. They like getting attention from anyone. Millennial narcissists are the worst.

      May 23, 2014 at 10:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • masc4masc
      masc4masc

      bet the Times writer also beats off to said shirtless pics repeatedly.

      May 24, 2014 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NG22
      NG22

      @sportyguy1983: If you were born in 1983, as your username suggests, then you, too, are a Millennial.

      May 24, 2014 at 7:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NG22
      NG22

      I don’t think the article is primarily about his sexuality in the first place. It’s about how a United States Congressman is very, very different from most United States Congressmen. He’s young. He’s athletic. He’s handsome. He takes glamorous trips. He goes to concerts and awards shows. He’s a hit on social media. And there’s also controversy regarding his sexual orientation.

      If Aaron Schock was a Congresswoman who was just as beautiful, just as fit, and flaunted those assets on social media, The New York Times Fashion Section would just as easily write an article about that Congresswoman’s social media profile. But that is not how female politicians behave, because they would be accused of sexualizing themselves in public, and that would be considered unspeakably inappropriate.

      What you’re not seeing is that these sorts of are-they-or-aren’t-they stories regarding Congressman Schock is more a function of his physical attractiveness than anything else. If he was the same sexually-ambiguous person, but ugly and unappealing shirtless, there would be no story or fascination here.

      It’s only because Aaron Schock is beautiful enough to be a celebrity, enjoys flaunting that, and enjoys celebrity pop culture that he has become a story. He’s pretty. That’s why people care. The alleged gayness adds questions and controversy, but he’d likely get much the same sorts of stories written about him if he openly dated women but was otherwise the same. (I can imagine the added paragraph now: His girlfriend, Heather Moore–Director of Policy at the Cato Institute–does not mind the same-sex attention Mr. Schock receives.)

      Sites like Gawker and Queerty always pounce on mainstream outlets like the Times when they write stories like this. It’s damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t. If they out him, you’ll complain; if they don’t, you’ll complain.

      I do not appreciate the Times-bashing by Mr. Tharrett or Mezalen. I don’t want to be rude, because I like this site, but need I remind you that the New York Times uncovers and reports more valuable journalism in a month than Queerty has ever or will ever publish? They don’t need to get their investigative journalists to delve into a Congressman’s sex life. What would that accomplish? The Fashion Section was simply exploring the beautiful anomaly that is Congressman Schock. Trust me–Elijah Cummings does not post shirtless pics to Instagram and have a horde of gay admirers. If he did, that’d be a story too.

      May 24, 2014 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • yousir75
      yousir75

      @sportyguy1983: You’re absolutely correct.

      And gay guys who fawn over a politician with an anti-gay record are pathetic.

      May 24, 2014 at 7:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy0529
      andy0529

      That Dudes has been caught by local media (Washington Post/Washington Blade) and National media (TMZ) going into and coming out gay book book stores and bars that it’s laughable that this up for debate….your readers under 40 probably don’t know that some of the most anti-gay legislature and bigoted AIDS policies were written by gay people. The guy who crafted DOMA and DADT married his boy friend when it became legal in Massachusetts.

      May 25, 2014 at 12:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tk03
      tk03

      @yousir75: Second.

      May 27, 2014 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JayHobeSound
      JayHobeSound

      @NG22: The NYT was complicit in shilling for the dishonest, dishonorable War on Iraq. Bush and Company’s lies went unchallenged by the NYT and as such was complicit in misleading the U.S. and allies into a war based on known lies. 4,000-some U.S. military personnel were KIA in Iraq and upwards of 150,000 Iraqis were killed due to the “shock and awe” (a/k/a carpet bombing) of the U.S. imposing “freedom and democracy” with bombs and bullets. Mission Accomplished: Iraqi society was thoroughly shattered. The NYT let our nation – and the world – down. The Grey Lady’s hands are drenched in the blood of the victims of the War on Iraq.

      http://www.ivaw.org

      Jun 1, 2014 at 4:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.