Regarding The Guardian interview that's getting a lot of pickup today: in that interview, I wasn't asked about Anderson Cooper, I didn't say anything about him, he literally was never discussed during the interview at all -- even implicitly.
I don't tend to be shy when I criticize -- you wouldn't have to read between the lines if that's what I was trying to do.
I've long held three basic beliefs about the ethics of coming out:
- Gay people -- generally speaking -- have a responsibility to our own community and to future generations of gay people to come out, if and when we feel that we can.
- We should all get to decide for ourselves the "if and when we feel that we can" part of that.
- Closeted people should reasonably expect to be outed by other gay people if (and only if) they prey on the gay community in public, but are secretly gay themselves.
I also believe that coming out makes for a happier life, but that's not a matter of ethics, that's just corny advice.
Media-about-media today notwithstanding, I did not in my interview with The Guardian say anything about or to Mr. Cooper, nor would I. Although criticism of Mr. Cooper was intimated by The Guardian and picked up everywhere -- I did not make that criticism in the interview, nor did I imply it, nor is it what I believe.
Leave a Comment:
Well done, Rachel. You are so incredibly classy.
I'm glad you said something about this, because based on what I know of your public personality I found the comment out of step with your usual tone. Frankly, I'm disappointed in The Guardian's handling of this. I generally like their reporting and opinion pieces and read the digital edition of the paper as often as I do the NY Times. They should know better.
I too am glad you said something Rachel. I had read The Guardian piece this morning, and I liked it. I thought it was good. I especially like the use of:"arch humour," "rictus smile," and "'autocutie'" because they are cool words/terms.
Also, I learned something about you, and that was cool too. Later in the day someone said how you had slammed Anderson. I was nonplussed. There was no mention of Anderson.
I guess I am just naive, but I read the piece because it was a profile on you and I thought it was good. I did not read anything into what you said, so all I can do now is shake my head and mumble, "Some people, jeeze."
Agree with Ranta.
The implied criticisms seemed so incongruous with your persona, I personally didn't believe them.
What a negative time suck from your probably otherwise all-to-busy day.
Yeah, the thought of Cooper never crossed my mind when I read the article. In fact, thoughts of Cooper seldom cross my mind. But I'm sure that's all me, not him. Sorry, Anderson. ;)
Atheists have the same responsibility, to come out of the closet.
I gotta say, I was very surprised to hear people having such a fit over this. I totally agree with her philosophy of coming out.
In fact, if it weren't for watching Rachel every night, who knows how long it would have been until I came out myself. My coming out is direct proof of why the system of ethics on coming out, so to speak, really is important to follow. Because Rachel was comfortable coming out, and because she was totally out, I came out - this is the ultimate aim of this system of ethics: to have everyone feel comfortable enough to come out.
So thank you Rachel for following your own rules, and if upholding these rules offends someone reading this, I'm sorry that you are offended, but maybe you should rethink your opinion on this issue.
I thought the Guardian article was very enjoyable, and nowhere in it did I see mention of or allusion to A.C. I had heard a long time ago that he was gay, but had forgotten about it until now.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people are able to make smoke without a fire.
joy, people are taking it as if that is who is being discussed.
rachel is pointing out that when she criticizes there isn't an air of "reading between the lines" as this interview was implying for people to do.
that one part is done with smoke screens, which leaves people to assume and talk. rachel is clarifying it up.
Carrie, that's what I meant how some people are able to make smoke without a fire..........or make assumptions without facts. Having listened to Rachel for the past 2 years or so, she sure didn't have to clarify it as far as I am concerned. She's as straightforward as anyone could be - which is probably one of the reasons that you and I and all the others admire her for.
But thanks for the post!! Every now and then I admit I do need clarification.
ahhh, ok - and as do i, joy, as do i :)
i do admire her straight forwardness :)
@Gary - is there an atheist closet? Imagine that!!
As a confirmed atheist, it never occurred to me to hide that fact. That would be dishonest in my view, and despite what many "believers" think about us, lack of belief in a higher power does not automatically translate to a lack of morals, so dishonesty is something I try to avoid. ;-)
Rachel is to be commended for answering the question of Anderson Cooper. She is very honest and I am sure she would not have hinted at anything about Anderson Cooper. That's what I do not like about the media and the way they hint, or want to hint, at something someone has said when they did not say it. That's why people get the wrong information and I am glad that Rachel spoke out about the subject. She is such an open and honest person. I give her credit for being the person she is. Right on, Rachel !!!!
That's nice for you. Clearly you have never been in a situation risking family, friend, community, or workplace ostracism.
Sorry, Mech, but you would be wrong about that. However, I learned a long time ago that people who cannot or will not accept you for who you are aren't worth keeping around anyway.
So... Anderson Cooper is gay?
That was my reaction.
There's no being subtle with this crowd!
Randy from Maine.
Who'd a thunk it?
To quote circa '97 Ellen Degeneres, that man he lives with is just his 'roomate'
teehee
What difference would it make if he is or isn't???? All the more power to him either way! Has he, like others we know, endured hellish conditions to bring us news from hostile locations?? Do we appreciate him and others for their courage and dedication?? I truly don't care whose shoulder they find comfort on as long as they have someone to comfort them!!
Who cares?
Randy from Wisconsin.
Straight people probably don't care. Gay people do. And everyone in the gay community knows Anderson is gay. Anderson is always on the OUT Power 50 list...and always seems to outrank Rachel.
http://www.out.com/power50/?slideshow_title=Fifth-Annual-Power-50&theID=4#Top
Wait... Is Rachel gay? But she seems so nice...
Word, Randy. Word.
@nyck That makes her all the more nice...
Damn you mind! Stop going to that place!
You never said a word about Anderson Cooper?
They also reported "Rachel Maddow sent a message to closeted gay news anchors: you have to come out." I don't believe you said that they HAD to come out either.
Did I read the wrong article??
No, you read the right article. But some people just assume that whatever they see in a text is what the author put into it, or that what they hear someone say in an interview is what they actually said. Kind of like the people who think The Lord of the Rings is all about nuclear weapons, no matter how unlikely that really is. So I suppose if someone had a thing about Cooper being (supposedly) gay...meh.
Considering how calculated Rachel Maddow is when she speaks on both her own show and Meet the Press, I find it hard to believe that she would slip and say a statement like this about AC. I'm chalking it up to the Guardian taking a piece of the interview out of context and giving her a pass.
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the piece in the Guardian, but it doesn't say a thing about Cooper. It's other people who are making that linkage.
When I finished reading the Guardian peice, my first thought was to come here and make a comment about how classey I've always thought Rachel is... somebody beat me to it. It's still true and I've said it also. Keep up the great work Rachel, you're the best!
I understand your point but it might have been better to be more specific about the "if and when" part in the article. Anderson is smart and secure enough to handle his life the way he wants so does not need protection. But others may not be so secure and others may not feel a need to declare their gay-ity. Who cares, anyway? I certainly wouldn't think you were any more or less of a newsperson based on your lifestyle. I guess I still don't understand why it's so important to declare it, though I do feel strongly you should never deny who you are.
I think it's this part: "a responsibility to our own community and to future generations of gay people to come out."
Being out raises visibility and allows people to associate a real human face with what "gay" is. Being out means that all of the closeted people around you--people who are young, or scared, or just feel that they "can't" be out--see someone who is out and alive and (hopefully) happy. We still need those reminders sometimes, even those of us that are out, and (ha) outspoken about it. I know of one single out gay professor in my discipline. I'm sure there are more out there, but one? Is lonely. If there were none? I would have serious worries about how possible it is to survive as a queer woman in my field.
It's very much the same for other "minority" groups (women, people of color, et cetera) except that gay people aren't necessarily read as being part of the gay minority unless they out themselves.
....
Well said. I was just about to jump into the twitter fray about this topic, but now it's not needed.
Where's this "fray" and this "pickup"? I feel totally out it.
Remind me to congratulate my twitter-feed.
This doesn't make The Guardian look very credible. Too bad they need to manufacture a story where none exists. They'd have had an interesting interview with an up and coming star without the embellishments.
Say it with me: "The Guardian story never mentions Anderson Cooper." Maybe the interviewer had someone specific in mind, but the article doesn't actually spell anything out.
I immediately thought of AC when I read the article. I also immediately noted that the topic was carefully and skillfully crafted by the writer to encourage readers to connect certain unwritten dots.
Rachel didn't give her a money quote about AC but she did answer her (general, not AC specific) question honestly. The fracas ensued because too many readers do not read carefully or critically, and are easy to mislead if someone clever says nudge nudge wink wink.
It is relevant again and again and again. Facts matter.
Anyhoo-- I was waaaay more interested in her "amazing (London) social life" than snoozer old news about when or whether Coop will come out. I cannot be alone on this. Seriously, come on now.
and i still want to know what she meant by "i take up a lot of space"... :)
@jender13, I also would like to understand that remark....
*sigh* we may never know, mightbe...
As Classy as always Rachel. Kudos.
XO
@Sevilla90
Wow, a real live Rachel post on the Maddow Blog. Is that a first? Hmm. Anderson Cooper's gay? As if. Didn't Kelly out him months ago when he was co-hosting for Regis? And I seem to recall Kathy Griffin outing him on New Year's Eve. For that matter, I think one of his CNN co-hosts outed him, if I remember correctly. He has also somewhat outed himself, even though he does it with caution. Rachel did not mention his name, and she could have been referring to anyone. There are tons of rumors about lots of reporters and hosts who are either rumored to be gay or posing as straights. Rachel could have been referring to anyone and possibly was. Shame on The Guardian, especially for their snipy update. Rachel, I hope you do another interview with them, if for no other reason than to speak your mind to them face to face.
I personally thought it was Mo Rocca she had in mind, but maybe that's just me.
I'm confused. It clearly states in this article Ms. Maddow that you were asked if a certain known-to-be gay but never acknowledged anchor should come out. I'm sorry but even my mother knew who The Guardian was referring to. I find it extremely difficult to believe that you were not answering that question with Mr. Cooper in mind.
I am so tired of certain gay elitists pushing their views on every gay person in their community. If you truly believed that a gay person has a right to decide when it is safe for them to come out, you would have declined to answer that question.
Ms. Maddow, I call you a hypocrite, plain and simple.
Or you don't at all understand how interviews and reporting works. The guardian did not post a transcript of the interview. You are taking the fact that the author of the article hinted about a known-to-be gay anchor as if that was the actual question asked. The author of the article is editorializing in her write-up. This does not mean that's how the question was asked to Rachel. Rachel was, more than likely, asked if closeted TV anchors should come out. If that was the case that wasn't referring to anyone in specific, it would have been referring to a hypothetical. In which case her answer makes complete sense. You can not infer that the written commentary by the author of the article is exactly as the question was presented to Rachel. Anyone who has worked in journalism even as an amateur should know this.
Beyond that I'm surprised people are getting angry w/ Rachel over her answer. What business does anyone have asking about Anderson Cooper's sexuality??? If they wanted to know about his personal life they should've asked him.
ding ding
Newsworthy chick thank u
I should also point out that even if Rachel had been asked in this context (meaning the guardian reported context correctly) you are all aware that Rachel doesn't own a television and doesn't watch TV, right? She doesn't stay up on gossup or celebrity-ism. She has said this I don't know how many times in how many different interviews. Someone could've asked her about that family w/ 19 kids and she probably wouldn't know they were talking about the Duggars.
I have a TV and never heard of Duggars with 19 children. Is that Kate and the ex husband?
MM don't try to defend what most can see. Unfortunately, just like the royal wedding we will have to listen to this irrelevant back and forth about is AC 360 gay or not. No one really gives a damn.
It is all about keeping "gay' in the media.
Then your anger should be with The Guardian and not w/ Rachel. You are misplacing your anger and taking issue w/ someone who had nothing to do w/ it. We're all aware that you like to gay bash when you get a chance Tanyars, I'm just saying there's a different perspective from your anti-gay one.
I am not angry just sick of "the media" becoming the news. We have so many other problems and we get breaking news, is AC 360 gay and royal wedding 24/7. Then we want to know why this country is so backwards. sigh!
....so you're mad at Rachel for correcting the record (as it pertains to her) on a controversy she didn't make up and apparently wants no part of? How does that make any sense?
b
Anderson Cooper isn't in the closet. Shep Smith on Fox is kinda in the closet...though I don't recall him ever denying he was gay.
Give me a break. Rachel's opinion is the same as most of the gay rights movement since the 70s and especially the 80s. But maybe you think Harvey Milk was an elitist too.
Actually, I have no idea what a gay elitist is. Someone who is exceptional at being gay?
Damn, I had no idea you had a PhD. That fact blows me away more so than anything you migth or night not have said about Anderson Cooper...
Anyone who reads the article should easily see your words have been twisted and distorted. I agree with the statement you made -- "... I do think that if you're gay you have a responsibility to come out." That in 2011 too many still feel trapped by the closet certainly isn't your fault. You're a positive example for so many younger GLBT people as well as old farts like myself. Stay strong.
Besides, anyone who shares my love of Jessica Mitford can do no wrong in my book. If we had more people like Decca and you our world would be a much better place.
AC 360 is hot! Who cares if he is gay?
If the gay issue keeps coming up, the same with abortion, Planned Parenthood,etc., it's because the repubs want these issues kept alive. They want anything distracting to keep the peoples minds off the real subject -- making jobs and keeping us from knowing the truth of their agenda (destroying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid). They are at this moment planning a secret meeting of how to handle the peoples ire over their plans. You can bet they will find a way -- they always do. It's past time that people accept the gays as being human beings like the rest of us and concentrate on more important matters. People seem to find it necessary to be racist, against this and against that. Why can they not mind their own business and accept people for who they are?????
The only thing I'm less interested in than the Royal Wedding is Anderson Cooper's sexuality.
I normally refrain from commenting on these matters, but here is what I think regarding Dr. Maddow's looks, style of dress, being gay, etc.
I don't care. She's not my friend, I'm not going to get a phone call or email sharing a personal story or asking my advice about her love life, cocktail choices, or her wardrobe. I'm never going to meet her for drinks in NY to swap stories about the awful time we had on the subway that day.
What matters to me is whether she is smart and can give me information I don't already have, or express a viewpoint that I haven't already thought of. She does both often and well, so I'll keep watching, until she doesn't.
I'd do him.
Randy from Maine.
So, Ms. Maddow. If your are gay you have a 'responsibility' to come out? That puts you on the same bench as Perez Hilton. Maybe that's ok with you. Not with me.
You have a responsibility to come out for your community and for your personal life if and when you are ready. Either take it in context or don't comment.
Get the context right, Hillary. I'm in agreement with Mickey here.
If you honestly believe that, I feel sorry for you.
Reread points 1,2, and 3 above. PHilton-like? I think not.
Please do not equate Rachel to that media whore Perez Hilton. I agree with Rachel, 100%. Gays and lesbians should not be in the closet if at all possible. It's important to be true to yourself, embrace who you are and the community. Rachel is a brutally honest person about her sexuality and her views regarding it, and I find it very refreshing. I am a straight person and I admire her a great deal because she's the real deal.
Rachel's on the same bench as the majority of the gay community. When gay people come out they make it easier for other gay people to come out. Openly gay people also act as a lifeline for those who are having a difficult time. That's why it's so encouraged. For decades coming out was our only tool against oppression.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by utter ignorance of gay history and the gay rights movement. But it is a bit depressing that a person knows what Perez Hilton thinks, yet knows nothing of the gay rights movement.
no one should be in the closet, but respecting that personal growth of processing one own self is a must.
it's sad to see gays who are out bully other people into coming out - it's why #3 is so important of a personal line. i think rachel would agree.
it's not just about being out, it's about being - and showing in that being that one can be safe and one can be happy.
rachel is not about making the personal lives of people a public show, unless of course, they're being hypocrite and using their position of power to suppress people...and even then she uses a line of not going too personal.
I find outing in any form and for whatever reason reprehensable. For those of us that had to make that fight and make that decision in a much different time, its's personal, and a choice. It wasn't easy, it's not any easier today despite the changes, because that battle that decision is personal, if your unfortunate enough to be in the public eye, then your burden and your decision is much heavier, but it's not for me to judge. Out or in your my brothers and sisters, we share a common path and walk way eventually, but those walks are of our own choosing, I will hold your hand and be there, no matter which side of the closet door you stand on......"To thine ownself be true",,
Outing is nothing more than a sensationalistic act, based on an internal homophobic narrcissim. It is a trajectory that neither defines us or clarifies our purpose of beings. In and of itself it does not speak to our better natures, it only hurts someone who is already dancing on a tenuous thread, living in a shadow, that we all know, and have shared. Some maybe comfortable in that shadow, and that should be thier choice,,,,always thier choice...my hand should always reach for the light, but remember the shadow and extend to the darkness I came from. I will never forget my choice, and I will always protect that "choice".
There was in my day a "gay" understanding,,,you choose, a sense of personal protection and integrity that was inviolate..We care for our own whether in shadow or light, its a choice, and an abomination to cross those boundaries, a violation that precedes all of us. We are capable of circleing the wagons, but you shouldn't have to watch your back........
So while we're (sort of) on this topic. How do we (we being lay-people) know Cooper isn't out? I feel like there's this weird expectation celebrities must come out on the cover of People or it doesn't count. Like a "pics or it didn't happen" type of thing. Especially given he's in an arguably serious profession, as oppose to say actors or celebutantes or musicians, on which we spend an inordinate amount of time as a society gossiping about who they are dating.
I get the whole "its better for society if you come out" argument, but lay people don't need to come out in the pages of a news magazine. I'm probably missing something in the whole concept of being out, but it seems we actually put an extra burden on gay celebrities. I think there's a difference between being in the closet and not choosing to be on the cover of People with an "I'm Gay" plastered across your forehead.
No one queer and out comes out only once. They come out every single day. That Anderson Cooper may (or may not) choose to be open (or not) to some people about whether he is (or is not) gay is all well and good. It's his choice and his path. But not dignifying it with a response is not the same as being out. Actually, it's the opposite of being out.
The opposite of being out is being in the closet. Anderson has never pretended to be straight nor has he ever implied he was straight. While I wouldn't go so far as to say he's out, it's only because of that dang double standard where people just assume someone is straight even though they have never indicated as such implicitly or explicitly.
But then I've never really been fond of polar definitions.
Anderson just seems to be guarded about his private life because his mother is a celebrity. More people probably know he's gay than know he's Gloria Vanderbilt's son.
i had no clue he was a vanderbilt, let alone gloria's son. no wonder he's so refined as a gentleman.
Hi Grrrl,
I do get that. But my point about coming out every single day is that being "out" is a polar definition. It is a very simple metaphor. You are out of the closet, or you are in the closet. Standing in the closet with the door open is still standing in the damned closet. There is certainly a spectrum for how deeply one chooses to be in the closet, but only one position is "out". All others are varying degrees of "in".
To be out, you have to grab the doorjamb, stick your foot on the threshold and "come out" of the closet every single time some moron shoves you back into it. It sucks and it is stupid, but it is the only way to be out.
You hit the nail on the head when you used the word "guarded" in regard to AC. To be on guard about saying you are queer suggests there is a reason you are choosing to omit the fact you are queer. That is the closet. Period.
I judge no one in the closet, however deeply, because I do not walk in anyone else's shoes. But it's like being a little bit pregnant.
We all have had those moments where we feel unsafe, too. If in that moment we do have the option to omit our sexuality and choose to make that omission, we have, in that moment, chosen the closet. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying it isn't "out".
I guess I'm in the closet by your definition then. Which is weird, but okay.
I've had several jobs where I work with the public and customers frequently assume I'm straight. Right now I work in a hardware store with my partner. We don't show affection at work, but customers can tell we're close. So we'll frequently get, "You must be sisters." We always tell them no, but we don't always tell them we're partners.
Yes, even though we're both butch and people can tell we're close, they can't always tell we're gay. (Although for some reason people are more likely to clock me as gay when I'm not at work.) Anyway, I'm not sure how practical or worthwhile it is to tell someone that I'm only going to talk to for two minutes that I'm gay.
When this happens, I don't feel like some moron is shoving me back in the closet. I feel like some nice person has unfortunately assumed something incorrect about me due to bias. I would compare it to someone saying "Merry Christmas" to a person that doesn't celebrate Christmas.
There was one customer that assumed I had a husband. One of my straight coworkers said, "Don't you hate that?" See, she's single and doesn't intend to get married. So, she experiences the same thing. I don't know if that means she's in the singles closet.
A gay person sometimes omitting that they're gay isn't necessarily out of shame or lack of safety, but just choosing one's battles. I don't know how practical it is to allow heteronormativity and heterosexism to define what "out" means. Because as long as most people automatically assume that everyone is straight until they indicate otherwise, we are all in the closet by that definition. And we always will be because that bias will likely always exist. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but we're at a mathematical disadvantage.
In the long run, I see eliminating the whole concept of the closet as the bigger goal. Sexual orientation is a characteristic that isn't always obvious. I'd like to see it become like other characteristics that aren't initially obvious, but can just be discovered or figured out through typical social interaction without being earth shattering news. Like learning someone is gay would be like learning someone has kids or served in the military and other non-controversial things.
hmm, that's not the nail I was suggesting. "Anderson just seems to be guarded about his private life because his mother is a celebrity." I meant to imply causation. I can see how I wasn't that clear though. Anderson has noted that his mother's life and relationships were frequently a point of gossip in tabloids and said that he didn't want to repeat that. Not wanting to discuss his private life may not have anything to do with being gay.
Anderson has done a good job of covering gay stories. I think he's an asset to the gay community, just in a different way. Jodie Foster isn't exactly out there either, but has given generously to the Trevor Project.
Unfortunately people, including journalists, often read into words what they want to be true. So thank you for the clarification. A classy move, as always.
Could be worse. The Guardian could have accused Rachel of calling Mr. Cooper a Birther.
Paper editorialises,creates storm in tea cup.........no news.From what I can see they took a statement put their own spin on it & applied it to Mr Cooper who has been the subject of much speculation which always titillates the press.
Who you love and what happens in your bedrooms should be of little interest unless it involves some degree of hypocrisy/illegality.You'd think that would go without saying in this day & age but here I am saying it again.I wish politicians & newspapers would get over it & move on to more pressing issues.
Yeah that's basically the position Rachel has always had. She only thinks being "outed" is important when the person spends their time trying to deny gays rights. Other than that I don't think she really cares other than, as she puts it, corny advise to a friend. This isn't the first time she has been asked about people who're closeted and she is making the same statement here on Maddowblog that she did when Letterman asked her. I don't see how people can sensationalize such a non-story.
For instance the George Rekers incident. A man who made a point to bash homosexuals, get paid to say homosexuals make crappy parents..yet get caught with his own little boy toy. People like that SHOULD be outed and called out for being the two faced pricks they are..and I think that's what Rachel was trying to get at, because it happens quite a bit. Aside from that, her views are that coming out is a personal decision but an important one for the individual and others in the community to support one another. She's not trying to out Anderson and has no desire to, and it was crappy of the Guardian to imply that.
it was crappy of the gaurdian to allow the author to put a smoke screen in there to leave the reader to make assumptions.
AMEN, saddler.
Yes, it seems you did read the wrong article. Sounds like another article, paraphrasing the original. At no point did The Guardian mention Anderson, and the question that they actually ask her is never printed, only her response, that the inserted in between innuendo.
This is the paragraph in question:
Maddow is one of the very few gay news anchors in America – well, one of the very few openly gay news anchors. Does she feel frustration towards an equally well-known news presenter who is widely assumed to be gay but has never come out? For the first time, Maddow pauses: "I'm sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they're doing what they're doing, but I do think that if you're gay you have a responsibility to come out," she says carefully.
Yeah, the interviewer may have had some specific "well-known news presenter" in mind, but if so there was no name dropped. Not everything that a reader gets out of a text is something that the author put in.