I believe Jim Buzinsky is hoping to offer a helpful, valid and fresh understanding to the idea of gays in sports: since being gay is a natural trait like eye-color, skin-pigmentation, or right-or-left-handedness, why are certain media commentators still treating it as a some kind of a disgrace? It is not dishonorable as a matter of fact, it can only seem shameful in the minds of those who continue to hold onto mistaken superstitions, like the once widespread fear that left-handedness was the mark of the devil. And as George_vikingfan has pointed out with the above excerpt from Phil Taylor's column in CNNSI.com, it's encouraging to see that a few prominent sports writers have grasped the essentially neutral quality about being a gay professional athlete.

Imagine if the New York Post had featured this bit of gossip:

WHICH Hall of Fame baseball hero cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep it secret that he is right-handed? The author kept her word, but big mouths at the publishing house can't keep from flapping.

Pretty bland, I admit, so why would we consider it "character-assasination" to find the word "gay" included this blurb? It might be newsworthy if it could be reliably inferred that this report was about a famous left-handed pitcher such as Sandy Koufax, and Koufax could indeed feel it was an invasion of his privacy to suggest he had been a closet righty throughout his career, and there probably would be a silly clamor by the news media to substantiate this allegation. There might even be some sensationalism surrounding this story, but would it merit cries of righteous indignation meant to protect the famous athlete? Why, then, has the assumption been made, by certain segments of the media and by Sandy Koufax's "defenders," that to be suspected of being gay is to be tainted with infamy? We can only reach such a conclusion if we begin with the prejudice that being called gay is something bad, and a "slander" that must be strenuously avoided. I've found myself adopting this attitude unconsciously (and I'm glad Jim Buzinsky has helped to clear out the mental cobwebs.)

As I understand it, the established press did not initially pick-up the NY Post's topic of a gay Hall of Famer, because there was no way for reporters to maintain their journalistic standards by "guessing" publicly about who this individual might be. Even knowledgeable OUTSPORTS contributors seemed unaware of this issue until Sandy Koufax made a move by severing his ties with the Dodgers, and, if Koufax himself hadn't added his own piece to this puzzle, it probably would have remained only a brief, insignificant "blip" on the radar screens of private Message Boards like these, to fade away quietly without even being noticed by the general population. Suppose the NY Post's nameless rumor had, somehow, pointed eventually in the direction of Koufax, though he had originally ignored it in a wish to protect his right to privacy? His response could always be something like the usual benign, yet simple and gracious reply to the "sexual orientation" question: "Gay or straight, what really matters is contributing according to your unique abilities. I always wanted to achieve that in my career as a pitcher and I'll always appreciate the support given me by my teammates and fans. I also believe that privacy is a form of dignity that we grant one another in our personal lives, and I'm grateful for the private respect that folks have given me in my retirement."

Please understand that I don't wish to "blame" Sandy Koufax for wanting a quiet existence and exercizing his perfect freedom to decline having to "come out" under any label or category: gay, straight or somewhere in-between. I'd only like to encourage viewing this from a broader persepective; that is, asking the question, "Why are so many people acting as though the slightest hint of being gay ought to be considered -- and best dealt with -- as an ignominious libel?"

Just as the media attention drifted away from Mike Piazza (and others before him) on the issue of "Who might be a gay professional athlete," today's focus on Sandy Koufax will soon be directed elsewhere. I think it continues to be a blessing for us all when this subject benefits from the type of gentle reasoning that writers like Jim and Cyd are bringing to this discussion. I'm fairly convinced that the time will come when it's considered natural and normal that there are openly gay baseball players on teams in the Major Leagues, and I look forward to that time.

[ February 28, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]

Keith Olbermann responded to my column and you can find his response at the bottom.

Keith Olbermann's decent into idiocy continues unabated.

What Olbermann never explains is how the comment about the unnamed Hall of Famer was "homophobic." If the rumor were true ... that an author deliberately avoiding publishing a known secret in order to extort cooperation from the subject ... well, that's newsworthy. It also calls into question the validity of the entire book. If the NY Post (and I don't share Jim's low opinion of what is the closest thiing New York City has to a legitimate newspaper, except maybe for Long Island's Newsday) had evidence to support the rumor, then printing its blind item is legitimate. It's not "homophobic," as Olbermann contends.

Contrary to his vehement but intellectually dishonest retort, Olbermann is not only implying, but directly stating that any mention of homosexuality is homophobia ... hence, a bad thing. Olbermann's demonstrating the predictable response of someone caught in intellectual dishonesty ... attack the discoverer.

Yeah, like Olbermann would really be "angry" if Koufax were accused of being a closet right hander. He expects us to treat his response seriously when he makes such a fundamentally deranged statement? I don't think anger is the emotion you'd feel when you learned the (possibly) greatest left hander in baseball history wasn't using his dominant hand. By trivializing the issue of homosexuality in this condescending way, Olbermann makes it clear that his entire thesis is dishonest and that he's denying his real motives, whatever they are. Assuming Olbermann has the self-awareness to understand his self-motivations.

Just like I don't understand how back in the 80's I thought Flock of Seagulls was good music, I can't understand why I then thought Olbermann was an interesting and clever TV personality and sports reporter.

[ February 24, 2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I really don't understand Olbermann's response - is he saying he returned the advance because this little bit of flack proves that Murdoch and the Post are sleazy? Then why did he accept and advance from a publisher associated with Murdoch in the first place? I mean, no one can say that they don't know the Post is a little sloppy on the whole journalism ethics thing - SNL had a skit parodying their headlines (and complaining when they weren't offensive enough) back in the early 80's. And Murdoch's reputation is well known.

The thing is, I don't think Olbermann is lying. I really think he has convinced himself that his actions aren't about the topic of the rumor, but the publishing of the rumor itself (and he doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind whether it's true or not). It's this kind of blindness that makes homophobia so hard to combat. Having grown up in a society that continually and constantly provides negative information and images of gay people (or at least did when he was younger), he likely cannot even see his own prejudice - that being gay is a bad thing and being straight is a good one.

This quote from Olberman is telling

"The wrong act here is not constraining freedom of choice in sex"

Obviously he's pretty frightened by our "choice."

Well, I Ran and Wishing are top-drawer pop songs and guitarist Paul Reynolds was really cute. That's enough, probably.

Olbermann has issues, to say the least. He was excellent when he was on the local CBS affiliate but his "stardom" at ESPN really warped him. He wants to be taken seriously as a writer/journalist but intellectually he's kind of a lightweight. He's trapped between reading scores and wanting to pontificate.

And Jim's point is extremely well taken. That's what I feel the bottom line of this whole stupid thing is: being labelled gay is about the worst libel you can throw at someone and that's f**ked up. And even if the Dodgers leaked the Koufax letter, they would have had to explain why Koufax, who's not Howard Hughes for pete's sake, he's out there just not a publicity ho (see: Pete Rose), wasn't involved with the team any more.

I believe Keith. He is incredibly intelligent and a very sharp and savvy journalist. Even if he was anti-gay, I doubt he would say it-- directly or indirectly. He's too bright for that.

As for the hoopla, leave the old man alone. I believe these witch hunts-- Cruise, Spacey, et al-- only make us look ridiculous. GLAAD should go after anyone that tries to out a celebrity.

Z

Go after anyone that tries to out a celebrity? So it's all ok when the slightest rumor/PR meeting/dating update occurs--usually in the interest of promoting a career--so long as it's about straight subjects? But if it is about gay subjects--then we need to suppress them?

We're always interested in more than just purely professional achievements. We want to know about those around us--whether our co-workers, friends, sports heroes or celebrities. Trying to excise all straight references out of these interests and conversations would be ridiculous. As I consider it ridiculous to exclude gay interests from those same conversations.

What would the purpose be in protecting the closets of public figures? Especially those that would claim the [perceived] advantages of a straight life while living otherwise?

As far as I know, Kofax hasn't even done the "intelligent...savvy" thing of saying that while it's perfectly fine to be gay...some of my best friends are...blah blah...and that it's just all about accuracy. Clearly--if someone had said that he was living with the "woman from Tortola without being married!" I doubt he'd have pursued the same very public action to punish the remotely connected tentacle of Newscorp.

Maybe the best [unintended] lesson we can learn from this is yet another example of how huge and pervasive these multi-national companies are, and if they want to--can exercise enormous power over not only a particular life, as well as our political process.

It seems all this righteous chest-thumping from those in the media about the mis-use of media is just so much of a smoke-screen, providing cover [however fleeting and transparent] for the long-held bigotry's that pervade sports, the military et al.

When Cruise, Spacey et al stop making ridiculous spectacles of themselves by suing, announcing on national TV things that are patently untrue etc. all in the interest of protecting the projected straight status quo, maybe we can get around to leaving celebrities regardless of age--alone.

As if they're shocked--simply shocked!!--that the media works the way it does, usually to their own bottom-line benefit.

It sounds more to me like the character from Casablanca who was "shocked--simply shocked!" to learn gambling was going on, while he was collecting his winnings.

It seems we don't entirely know Koufax's motivation. Is he upset that he's alleged to be gay, or is he upset that the paper reported that this secret deal was made with the writer?

I appreciated Keith Olbermann's taking the time to respond and share his perspective, which does seem much more concerned with ethical journalism than anything else. Still, I am troubled by the phrase "freedom of choice in sex." Unfortunately, he does still have a lot to learn.

Today's Jock Talk mentions that Jim's Koufax article was mentioned on a straight-but-not-narrow sports site. I was amused by the poll they're running: "Is Sandy Koufax gay?" The only answers you can choose are:

Yes. He denied it quicker than Mickey Rivers scooting down the first-base line. Too quick, if you know what I mean.

Yes. With the way he handled the situation, acting like it would be the worst thing in the world if someone thought it, I'll just lump him in for spite.
wink

[quote]Jim Allen:
[QUOTE]Olbermann has issues, to say the least.[/quote]Last I heard, Olbermann is a lifelong batchelor in his early '40s. He gave an interview recently to TV Guide in which he said that while he wasn't much of a jock as a kid, he became a sports-statistics geek so that he could hang around with the jocks.

Hmmm...

The most consistent explanation for both Koufax's and Olbermann's ire would seem to be here:

rather than here:

Pursuit of the "profit" could explain a lot. Being rich doesn't prevent greed - sometimes it's the reverse.

[ February 28, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Although the story's died down somewhat, there was an article in the Globe and Mail today, Gagne pines for Koufax

"The most recent sighting of Koufax around a baseball diamond was Tuesday, when he was at the New York Mets' facility in Port St. Lucie."

Perhaps he went to talk to Mike Piazza.

[ March 06, 2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]

I was surfing the web and came to www.bulgereport.com and stumbled upon an interesting tidbit about Mike Schmidt.
I forgot about him as being a possible candidate for this.
I am enclosing the link from www.bulgereport.com
Here it is.

http://www.bulgereport.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=38

That's so totally unbelievable. Utter crap. Utter, utter, utterly complete crap.

But Joe, the source is so utterly credible.