

Does the press have an ethical duty to out powerful gays in tech? - jbk
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/does-the-press-have-an-ethical-duty-to-out-powerful-gays.ars

======
russell
Christ no! Do they have an obligation to out heterosexuals who engage in adult
consensual kinky sex? Same answer. I think even Republican politicians deserve
a little privacy. :-)

How about outing corruption, influence pedaling, and questionable campaign
contributions?

EDIT: I finally read the article. The whole thing is a perversion of ethics.
The idea that a journalist should out someone who is gay to celebrate gayness
is wrong. If the person wants it known, let him do it himself. I suppose an
exception is a gay bashing politician/activist who is in the closet, but that
is just exposing hypocrisy. Same would be true of an anti-drug evangelist who
is a secret drug dealer.

~~~
rhizome
_The idea that a journalist should out someone who is gay to celebrate gayness
is wrong._

In fact, the idea that someone should be outed for the benefit of gays is the
exact origin of the concept of "outing."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing#History>

------
pedalpete
Ars Technica should be ashamed of themselves for 1) considering to write a
piece like this 2) actually editing it for publishing 3) actually publishing
it.

The end result may be that many people will start to believe that Tim Cook is
gay.

How many people here even thought about Cook's personal life before reading
the article?

Does anybody think his (or anybody elses) sexuality matters? If so, I'd like
to hear why.

The press needs to start taking responsibility for what they are publishing.
When a publication openly discusses things like 'and a recent tasteless
photograph that I will not link ', or 'Whether or not you agree with what
Gawker published in January', providing a link or not, the reader is likely
inclined to search for said article or photo. It is as bad as writing the
initial article yourself.

Though I don't see a way out of this, I think that in this situation, Ars took
the wrong route, and I hope their editors pull the article.

------
_delirium
This article is pretty heavy on speculation, but even leaving that aside, I
don't think the underlying question is one that's likely to be resolved by
debate on this specific point. It's essentially an instance of the broader
question of how ethics should balance individual versus collective benefit
(when, if ever, is it ethically permitted, or perhaps even required, to do
something "unethical" seeming to one person if it benefits many more people?),
which ties into debates over things like utilitarianism.

------
benologist
You (sadly) have to read this crap to believe it, it's just incredible.

\- Unless they report Tim Cook's gay they're saying he's straight

\- What can be written about his sexuality when he doesn't tell them,
'nothing' obviously isn't an option because of the previous point

\- Therefore they ask is Cook is being unethical by not telling them about his
sex life

