The last couple of days, whispers about a certain public figure being homosexual have gradually been seeping into the MSM. My question is, should they?
Actually, I have several questions, including:
- What does it matter if he is? Aren’t we supposed to not care? I’m constantly told by my children and others of their generation that we’re not supposed to care, that it’s the same as being hetero — even as some of that generation use “that’s so gay” as an apparent pejorative, which confuses me because it’s so, well, my generation.
- At what point does the usual MSM dodge for reporting unsubstantiated rumor — that blogs and other low-threshold media have reported it to the point that the resulting buzz (not, of course, the underlying rumors themselves, perish the thought) has made news to the point that it must be reported — rise above being a lame excuse?
- Should I even be writing about it here, even in the rather priggish manner in which I am doing so?
I almost did so yesterday, when WIS actually did a report on the subject, which caused a bit of triumphalist chortling in the blogosphere. But I didn’t. Such is my reluctance to address such a subject. (The WIS report raises a subquestion: Should one say “crap” on broadcast TV?)
But now that Peter Hamby of CNN — yes, a national news organization — is reporting that Jake Knotts is actually accusing our governor of coordinating this whispering campaign against Jake’s ally — an accusation for which I’ve seen no justification, in the governor’s defense (merely having an apparent motive does not make one the prime suspect) — I’m faced with the fact that just about everyone but me is talking about this. (Such as Politico, and both national and state blogs.) No newspapers so far, though, unless I’ve missed something. I can well imagine the conversations going on in newsrooms as they decide what to do, or whether to do anything. And I remain surprised that WIS did it first.
But should anybody be reporting any of this? Whose business is this?
It’s perversely interesting (if I may use that modifier) to see how things like this play out in this allegedly “enlightened” age. Consider for instance the subset of this phenomenon, whereby the apostles of tolerance are the first to “out” political conservatives who are said to lean that way. Their excuse, of course, is that they are exposing the ultimate political sin in this postmodern world, hypocrisy. One can do all sorts of hypocritical things in the name of exposing hypocrisy, including acting like there’s something wrong with someone being “gay” even when one adamantly insists the rest of the time that there is not.
Me, I’m Old School. Personally, I appreciate people not talking about their sexual predilections. For instance, I do NOT appreciate people talking ad nauseam about their “soulmates,” of whichever gender. When they do, I tend to harrumph.
And when third parties talk about someone else’s rumored predilections, I get really uncomfortable. It doesn’t seem right.
The whole thing is just so cringe-making that I might take this post down when I look back at it later.
What do y’all think?