Don Lemon comes out at CNN - why should we care?

[DarthTom]

I'll preface this thread commenting as a gay man. I'm really not understanding what the big fucking deal is about Lemon.

OK, so what he's gay. However if I was in management at CNN I'd say, "OK, Don - this is fascinating, now go back to reporting the news objectively. We're not paying you to report the news from a 'gay point of view.''



Huffington

CNN anchor Don Lemon has come out. In a new book, "Transparent," Lemon talks about his life and his sexuality, and he revealed that he is gay in an interview with the New York Times. In a tweet on Sunday night, Lemon, who has anchored in a variety of roles for CNN, linked to the Times article and wrote, "wanted to be the firs to share with u. thanks for your support!!!"
By coming out, Lemon becomes one of a tiny number of openly gay anchors on television; the list also includes Rachel Maddow and Thomas Roberts, both of MSNBC.
In the interview, Lemon said that he has never hidden his sexuality from his co-workers at CNN, but decided to take a more public step after he felt that he could not write an inspirational book without being open about who he is.

 

[DonIago]

As a gay man, I would say that given the abundance of homophobia within the United States, we should care because people who know (of) gay people are generally inherently more likely to support them.

If Lemon's public coming-out means even one more person is more positively disposed towards homosexuals, it was worthwhile.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't watch CNN. I don't know this guy personally. And my attitude towards gays is exactly the same now as it was 5 minutes before I read this. So I'm afraid my response to this thread is:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGTrWlzK3Ho[/yt]

 

[DarthTom]

As a gay man, I would say that given the abundance of homophobia within the United States, we should care because people who know (of) gay people are generally inherently more likely to support them.

If Lemon's public coming-out means even one more person is more positively disposed towards homosexuals, it was worthwhile.

I understand what you're saying but CNN doesn't pay him to report the news from a 'gay point of view,' nor discuss his sexuality related to his work. He's paid to objectively report the news and leave his personal life at home.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Did you read the article? The reasons why he did it are stated quite clearly:

By coming out, Lemon becomes one of a tiny number of openly gay anchors on television; the list also includes Rachel Maddow and Thomas Roberts, both of MSNBC.

In the interview, Lemon said that he has never hidden his sexuality from his co-workers at CNN, but decided to take a more public step after he felt that he could not write an inspirational book without being open about who he is.

Lemon also said that he was "scared," because he was talking about things that "people might shun me for." He said that he was particularly concerned about what the reaction in the black community would be.

“I think it would be great if everybody could be out,” he told the Times. “...I think if I had seen more people like me who are out and proud, it wouldn’t have taken me 45 years to say it, to walk in the truth.”

- There are very few openly gay anchors. By coming out, he can serve as an inspiration to others to be open about their sexuality or encourage young people that being gay and having a successful career in the media are not mutually exclusive.
- He said he couldn't write an inspirational book without being open and honest about who he is.
- He wanted to be a role model for gays in the black community who might be concerned about being shunned if they come out.
- He wishes that there had been role models for young gay black men when he was growing up.

What does any of that have to do with him reporting the news objectively? What, just because he's gay that means he can't report on news related to gay issues without a slant? How about waiting until something actually happens before making that accusation?

He didn't reveal it at CNN, he revealed it in a book, in the New York Times, and on Twitter. So he doesn't have to "get back to reporting the news" because he didn't disrupt the news to say this. And even if he did, I see little difference between saying this and reporters announcing other personal info about themselves while on the air, which happens all the time on CNN.

Now, CNN is choosing to interview him about it, but that's their choice, and perfectly in line with their past decisions like their participation in the "It Gets Better" program relating to gay teens who are bullied.

 

[JoeZhang]

As a gay man, I would say that given the abundance of homophobia within the United States, we should care because people who know (of) gay people are generally inherently more likely to support them.

If Lemon's public coming-out means even one more person is more positively disposed towards homosexuals, it was worthwhile.

I understand what you're saying but CNN doesn't pay him to report the news from a 'gay point of view,' nor discuss his sexuality related to his work. He's paid to objectively report the news and leave his personal life at home.

you keep quoting "gay point of view" but I can't see him saying that in the article. So where does the quote or attribution come from?

 

[JarodRussell]

I'll preface this thread commenting as a gay man. I'm really not understanding what the big fucking deal is about Lemon.

OK, so what he's gay. However if I was in management at CNN I'd say, "OK, Don - this is fascinating, now go back to reporting the news objectively. We're not paying you to report the news from a 'gay point of view.''

Huffington

Erm... where does it say he reports news from a gay point of view?

Homophobe much?

His book and interviews have nothing to do with his news job.

 

[DonIago]

Well, don't you know that our ability to speak on any topic is innately affected by our sexual orientation?

 

[JoeZhang]

"And now the weather... from a gay point of view".

 

[RoJoHen]

"And now the weather... from a gay point of view".

What a fabulous rainbow!

 

[DarthTom]

you keep quoting "gay point of view" but I can't see him saying that in the article. So where does the quote or attribution come from?

Because Lemon is a high profile anchor at CNN perhaps attaching his job with his personal persona is just automatic for him and people in the media.

As an openly gay person myself at work though my sexuality rarely if ever comes into play in performing my job responsibilities and it seems unlikely that their will not be any 'bleed,' in doing his.

Perhaps CNN has no problem with this, in fact encourages it? And as a for profit corporation they have every right to do what ever they'd like.

I'd imagine that one of the reasons Anderson Cooper hasn't taken similar steps is because he doesn't want to be known as 'that gay journalist,' whereas I'd wager than Lemon now will be labeled just that.

 

[Count Zero]

I'd imagine that one of the reasons Anderson Cooper hasn't taken similar steps is because he doesn't want to be known as 'that gay journalist,' whereas I'd wager than Lemon now will be labeled just that.

If that's the case, then it seems to me there is ample reason for journalists to come out in public. The more you're confonted with it the more normal it gets. To many people, public figures of any sort are the only gays they 'know' and the ones that can dispel stereotypes and prejudices. They'll realise gays are normal people, sucessful journalists, politicians, athletes and so on.

By the way, coming outs can change things. I still believe that Klaus Wowereit's public coming out during his campaign for mayor/state premier of Berlin and his subsequent election success changed the situation for gay politicians enormously. It showed that it wasn't a career killer and that's why even a Conservative state premier could out himself later and no one batted an eye at the prospect of a gay Foreign Minister. All that within the span of a decade.

 

[Amaris]

Did you read the article? The reasons why he did it are stated quite clearly:

By coming out, Lemon becomes one of a tiny number of openly gay anchors on television; the list also includes Rachel Maddow and Thomas Roberts, both of MSNBC.

In the interview, Lemon said that he has never hidden his sexuality from his co-workers at CNN, but decided to take a more public step after he felt that he could not write an inspirational book without being open about who he is.

Lemon also said that he was "scared," because he was talking about things that "people might shun me for." He said that he was particularly concerned about what the reaction in the black community would be.

“I think it would be great if everybody could be out,” he told the Times. “...I think if I had seen more people like me who are out and proud, it wouldn’t have taken me 45 years to say it, to walk in the truth.”

- There are very few openly gay anchors. By coming out, he can serve as an inspiration to others to be open about their sexuality or encourage young people that being gay and having a successful career in the media are not mutually exclusive.
- He said he couldn't write an inspirational book without being open and honest about who he is.
- He wanted to be a role model for gays in the black community who might be concerned about being shunned if they come out.
- He wishes that there had been role models for young gay black men when he was growing up.

What does any of that have to do with him reporting the news objectively? What, just because he's gay that means he can't report on news related to gay issues without a slant? How about waiting until something actually happens before making that accusation?

He didn't reveal it at CNN, he revealed it in a book, in the New York Times, and on Twitter. So he doesn't have to "get back to reporting the news" because he didn't disrupt the news to say this. And even if he did, I see little difference between saying this and reporters announcing other personal info about themselves while on the air, which happens all the time on CNN.

Now, CNN is choosing to interview him about it, but that's their choice, and perfectly in line with their past decisions like their participation in the "It Gets Better" program relating to gay teens who are bullied.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Who? No idea who the guy is, but I find it interesting that they have to tell the whole world, like it really matters.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

you keep quoting "gay point of view" but I can't see him saying that in the article. So where does the quote or attribution come from?

I think there's a misunderstanding. As I see it, the ' ' aren't being used as quotation marks here but just as markers for a slightly ironic interpretation of what the studio bosses might think and don't dare to say aloud.

Mr Lemon is quite curageous, imo. Admirable.

Btw, today happens to be the 21st anniversary of the WHO deleting homosexual tendencies from the list of psychological diseases (better late than never) and the International Anti-Homophobia Day.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Because Lemon is a high profile anchor at CNN perhaps attaching his job with his personal persona is just automatic for him and people in the media.

As an openly gay person myself at work though my sexuality rarely if ever comes into play in performing my job responsibilities and it seems unlikely that their will not be any 'bleed,' in doing his.

Perhaps CNN has no problem with this, in fact encourages it? And as a for profit corporation they have every right to do what ever they'd like.

I'd imagine that one of the reasons Anderson Cooper hasn't taken similar steps is because he doesn't want to be known as 'that gay journalist,' whereas I'd wager than Lemon now will be labeled just that.

Have you really thought through what you're saying here, Tom? You're essentially treating the fact that Lemon is gay as some sort of sexual deviancy he should keep hidden lest it embarrass his employer. Who cares if CNN has a problem with it or not (though they obviously don't)? They should have no input whatsoever on his decision to come out publicly unless it's done on their airtime, which it wasn't. You're treating it like a violation of a CNN morality clause as if the act of being gay itself was immoral. Just because some backwards idiots think it's immoral doesn't mean it should dictate his choices.

You being openly gay probably doesn't come into play at your job because you're not a national newscaster. Lemon doesn't really have that choice of just being open and having it not be news to some extent because he's in the public eye. I'm not saying it's a big story or anything, but trying to compare it to your situation of coming out in relative obscurity is a bit disingenuous.

Again, are you actually reading the article you posted when you say "perhaps CNN has no problem with this"? The fact that they're going to be interviewing him about it makes it perfectly obvious they don't have a problem with it. They've always been very progressive when it comes to homosexuality.

Is Rachel Maddow primarily considered "the lesbian pundit"? Because that's not her defining characteristic to most people I know; her liberalism is.

 

[Amaris]

Who? No idea who the guy is, but I find it interesting that they have to tell the whole world, like it really matters.

As someone who is a mass media broadcasting personality, it does matter, because it will come up, particularly after his book has been published.

 

[Guartho]

As someone who has no idea what it's like to be in the minority in the US in anything, I would think that if I were in one I would want to see others in that group doing well and succeeding. I would think that would be especially true if my group were one that is discriminated against in the current law of the land. I would think that were my group one you that can't be identified just by looking, like sexuality, I would want as many successful respectable people as possible announcing their membership in my minority group.

 

[DonIago]

^Thank you.

 

[beamMe]

Who? No idea who the guy is, but I find it interesting that they have to tell the whole world, like it really matters.

'They' don't have to tell the whole world.
But it really does matter.