« Previous Post | Show Tracker Home | Next Post »

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: 'I wasn't asked about Anderson Cooper'

Maddow MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is all about keeping them honest, telling the Guardian that closeted gay anchors should come out. But, hey, that doesn’t mean she's referring to a certain CNN anchor.

In the interview with the publication, which was published Monday, the openly gay anchor is asked if she feels frustration toward “an equally well-known news presenter who is widely assumed to be gay but has never come out?”

“I’m sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they’re doing what they’re doing," she answers, "but I do think that if you’re gay you have a responsibility to come out.”

The interview drew much attention, with blogs suggesting she was referring to Cooper, who has never acknowledged -- or denied -- that he is gay. Maddow responded to the noise in a self-penned blog post Monday evening, stressing that she wasn’t singling anyone out.

“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,” she wrote. “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."

She goes on to list the ethics of “coming out,” in case you were looking for a guideline.

Do you agree that news anchors have a responsibility to be transparent about their sexuality?

-- Yvonne Villarreal

Photo: Getty Images

Comments () | Archives (28)

First off, it's orientation, not preference. When did you decide what your sexual orientation was, Ellen and Gemini and Van and laura? Second, yes, there is such a thing as privacy, but I think public figures in this day and age have a responsibility to the public. Who are all of you anti-outing commenters protecting? Maybe if more public figures were out, people wouldn't say some of the things they say to me because they assume I'm heterosexual, which, after all, is the default for people in almost every profession.

You say "privacy", I say "closeted and trying to pass." What's the point?

I am very disappointed in Rachel Maddow. Why does she feel that it is a responsibily for a gay person to "come out" We all have a right to privacy.
A person's sexual preference is nobody's business but their own whether staight or gay.

People are in the closet for their own personal reasons. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you have a right to dictate what others share with the world!

In a perfect world, yes, everyone could be open without repercussions. But how could she possibly say it's your "responsibility" to be open? I suppose she also means those who live in countries where you are KILLED for being openly gay?

Anderson Cooper has class and is probably private about his life because it has nothing to do with journalism. He isn't HIDING anything and neither is Jodie Foster, Kevin Spacey, etc. They just don't make a fuss about it.

I saw Tuesday's Rachel Maddow show about Florida election laws. I live in Pinellas County (primarily a Republican county and home of Charlie Crist), Florida; and there has been a really big push here for the voters to request mail in ballots. There are major concerns about these ballots: no one verifies that the registered voter is the one who actually receives the ballot and no one verifies that the registered voter is the one who actually casts the ballot. If a ballot is sent to an incorrect address or the registered voter has moved, anyone receiving the ballot could vote in the registered voter's place. Also, if the registered voter casts a mail in ballot, he can only verify that his ballot was received by the elections office by making a personal appearance at the polls or the election office. One of my friends went to vote and discovered that someone had cast her ballot by mail in. She could only challenge and submit a provisional ballot. I don't know what the final outcome was and I don't know how many people had similar situations on election day. But I do know that the local media reported complaints from registered voters in similar situations. In addition, I have an acquaintance who works in a retirement center and he said that they made sure that their deceased residents voted by mail in ballots before their deaths. Their stroke victims also voted by mail in ballots.

Maybe the questioner was referring to Shep Smith on FoX news. Who care? Really!

Sexuality of a news anchor is of no more interest or value than blood type. I am weary of this unhealthy obsession with the private lives of celebrities. Ye, gods, I [emphasized] have a life! I read the news to find out about important matters and issues. An anchor's sexuality is not important, newsworthy or anyone's concern.

It is sad that Rachel Maddow does not keep her personal opinions to herself. The reasons that heterosexuals disapprove of Gays is because of people like her. There are two types of Gays. The first are the hard working morally decent individuals who want to be treated no differently than anyone else. These are the individuals that do not let their sexual orientation define them. Instead they are defined by their personal achievements and contributions to society and how they treat others in society. The others are like Maddow who push herself, her personal agenda and business down the throats of everyone, always screaming here I am. Look at me! I am the only one with real thoughts so let me think and speak since your not smart enough to do it yourself. She is the same type of American traitor as the Marine sitting in jail for releasing classified military documents. Then everyone wonders why the world has no respect for Americans any longer. Well here is your answer Rachel Maddow, destroying America one word at a time.

S.K. states: "In what time period did we as a society deem it was a must that we disclose to the world what we do in our private lives." When our government (state and federal) decided to make laws that are anti-gay, homophobic and unequal. As far as the media is concerned, they have the responsibility in any of the anti-gay stories presented to "follow-up" on the compilation and origination of the story as true journalist which Rachel does and that others, closeted gay journalist, must do in order to be truthful to their trade. S.K. this is not a "society" issue and let's not go all drama about this but focus in on the responsibility and the hypocrisies presented by persons who profess to be journalists. You can be a journalist who is gay with an acredited view to the subject that presents itself as gay to discount it or abide by it and remain truthful to the people who recieves the report, us the viewers/listeners.

« | 1 2


Recommended on Facebook

In Case You Missed It...


Tweets and retweets from L.A. Times staff writers.




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: