Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.11.2009 6:46 pm

NPR review of gay-politician documentary won’t name names

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

At the website of National Public Radio, a review of a new documentary about closeted gay politicians was edited to remove the names of the prominent men who are outed in the movie. According to IndieWire, NPR editors cited their policy of preserving the privacy of people who are the subject of unsubstantiated charges.  Critic Nathan Lee, who also reviews movies for the New York Times, subsequently asked that his byline be removed from the edited review.

In “Outrage,” director Kirby Dick, who exposed the inner workings of the MPAA board in his documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated,” names several public figures who have actively worked against gay rights while secretly maintaining a homosexual lifestyle.

I don’t believe it would surprise anyone that disgraced Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is mentioned in the film, yet his is one of the names that the NPR editor removed from the review. Another name, that of a Republican governor from the South who recently announced that he is running for the U.S. Senate, has been the subject of rumors for years. But Dick Meyer, NPR’s executive director of digital content, told IndieWire, “NPR has a long-held policy of trying to respect the privacy of public figures and of not airing or publishing rumors, allegations and reports about their private lives unless there is a compelling reason to do so.”

Personally I’m undecided about the morality of outing public figures, but in cases where a demonstrably gay politician (or minister) has actively worked against gay rights, the balance seems to tilt in favor of disclosure.

Then again, editors can change anything they want. As journalist A.J. Liebling said, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

7 comments

Comments are closed.

In the case of these reviews, I don’t see a problem withholding the names.

In news stories and editorial that deal directly with the public figures I’m in favor of disclosure of names when there is proper evidence and attribution of facts.

— garricks
7:13 pm May 11th, 2009

I hope that Karl Rove is outed…though I doubt it–he’s far too sleazy and sneaky to get caught…what a self-loathing hunk of sh** that man is.

— don
8:31 am May 12th, 2009

Considering this is a movie that will eventually see release, what is the purpose of removing the names? NPR wants to cover their butt obviously, but isn’t the horse out of the barn?

— supersleuth
8:40 am May 12th, 2009

Maybe they want you to go see the movie…

— doe a dear
8:51 am May 12th, 2009

I also find these actions by NPR troubling. Dissonance between the words and deeds of public figures is usually enough to justify reporting on it. In this case NPR (and other outlets) have to also face the issue of how do they verify that the person in question is gay? Larry Craig certainly has proven beyond a doubt that he is at the very least an enthusiastic participant in gay sex, so redacting his name is clearly absurd. But what standard do you apply to people who haven’t been as public in their hypocrisy? I’m not saying the filmmakers aren’t accurate reporters. But doesn’t any outlet that wants to repeat the names of people outed in the film need to do its own reporting and verification first?

I think you put it perfectly when you say “in cases where a demonstrably gay politician (or minister) has actively worked against gay rights, the balance seems to tilt in favor of disclosure.” It’s the demonstrably part that gets tricky.

— CollateralDamage
10:46 am May 12th, 2009

You said: “Personally I’m undecided about the morality of outing public figures, but in cases where a demonstrably gay politician (or minister) has actively worked against gay rights, the balance seems to tilt in favor of disclosure.”

Just because they are gay doesn’t mean they have to support all the bills on gay rights. Do seniors have to support everything AARP does? Do blacks have to support everything the NAACP does? Elton John doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Where is the outrage against Elton John? Lots of people are against same-sex marriage. Why are these senators being attacked because of their sexual orientation?

Of course they are going to be closeted. Society puts gays in boxes as tells them how they are supposed to act. Those who rebel are labeled as being untrue to themselves. Many gay people feel the gay community does not represent their values, and so they choose to distance themselves from them.

Rather than attacking every gay who doesn’t conform to the values of the gay community, maybe it is the gay community that should change and recognize that gay people come in all varieties and political beliefs. And yes, even some gay people believe children should have both a father and mother.

— Joshua Johanson
12:31 pm May 13th, 2009

it seems as if someone should be judged on their actions, rather than their sexual orientation.

(if someone votes against something, does it really MATTER if they’re gay or not ? ..does it change the vote ?)
does being gay obligate politicians to vote in any particular direction ?

WHY should gay politicians be outed ?
revenge ?
seems a hollow victory to me.
blackmail ?
seems to be a worse crime than hypocrisy, to ME..

if they promised to vote one way, beforehand, and didn’t keep those promises, then “maybe”..
but then again, unforseen circumstances may have changed their ability to KEEP those promises.. and there was no way of knowing this ahead of time; that in order to accomplish the higher priorities, they would have to dance to a different tune.

we can’t look into their hearts (only God can-Gandhi), and at the end of the day, they still have to look at themselves in the mirror..
everyone’s hypocritical about SOMETHING (it may be impossible to be OTHERwise).. and outing them may do more damage than not..

so I would have to vote “no. let them wrestle with their OWN demons, as I have plenty of my own to deal with”

— dudess
6:59 am May 20th, 2009