Feb 09, 2007  |  By: KEVIN NAFF  | COMMENTS     

KEEPING TABS ON mainstream media coverage of gay issues is becoming a full-time job as gay visibility increases and more outlets devote time and space to our plight.

Two recent examples illustrate ways in which old-school journalists and online upstarts still get our stories wrong.

A Blade reader e-mailed an interesting tidbit last week. It seems there’s been a debate raging at Wikipedia about the biographical entry for openly closeted CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.

The Blade and numerous other publications have written for years about Cooper’s sexual orientation. Cooper refuses to discuss his private life, even though he’s more than happy to sit for endless interviews and to be featured on magazine covers and in CNN’s ubiquitous ad campaigns promoting his show.

He told New York magazine in 2005, “You know, I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life. The whole thing about being a reporter is that you’re supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that.”

Of course, this is completely disingenuous, because Cooper was willing to talk to Oprah about his brother’s suicide. It doesn’t get much more personal than that. And to suggest that a reporter can’t cover a story if his sources know his sexual orientation is patently absurd. Do straight reporters take off their wedding rings and deny being straight to cover the news? Does being African American or female impede the ability of women and blacks to work as reporters? Cooper’s argument is illogical, evasive and raises more questions than it answers.

The new wrinkle is that an editor at Wikipedia last week deleted a reference on the site to an editorial I wrote in 2005 criticizing Cooper for his evasive answers in the New York magazine profile. The editor writes, “There is no evidence the Washington Blade is a significant, non-trivial, reliable source.”

I’d argue there’s no evidence that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

The Blade has a rich history in the D.C. community dating to 1969. The debate over citing the Blade in Cooper’s bio, which is playing out in a Wikipedia discussion thread, notes that other mainstream media sources, including ABC News and U.S. News & World Report, have cited the Blade as a credible news source. I could go on, but I think most thoughtful readers know that the Blade is a credible journalistic enterprise with award-winning journalists on staff.

Moving on, this Wikipedia editor writes, “We have an obligation to make certain that WP is not seen as a vehicle that can be used to ‘Out’ people, or in any other way be used to damage or smear people.”

Let’s just ignore this blatantly homophobic comment. Suggesting that describing someone as gay constitutes a “smear” is a tired old insult.

The editor adds, “At no point do we have verification from Cooper or any other reliable source that he is in fact gay, only speculation. Speculation is not encyclopedic, nor does it have any room in WP.”

The reality is that without speculation, we wouldn’t know about the sexual orientation of many notable people. But times have changed and laws have changed. No one is going to charge Anderson Cooper with sodomy if he comes out. And the point of my original editorial wasn’t so much to “out” anyone, it was to highlight how ridiculous and insulting it is for rich, famous, successful people to refuse to answer “the question.” No straight person denies being straight.

Getting back to Wikipedia and its overzealous “editors,” it’s important to point out that anyone can edit an entry on the site. “On Wikipedia, and its sister projects, you are welcome to be bold and edit articles yourself, contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. So, go ahead!”

I’ve always instructed reporters never to use Wikipedia. It’s not a reliable source and its content is subject to manipulation from anyone. In this case, a CNN staffer? A Cooper fan? Cooper himself? Who knows?

It’s just another reminder that as our sources of news and information evolve, it’s important to consider the source and double check your facts. Wikipedia’s bio of Anderson Cooper is now incomplete and straight-washed. ...