'How Sports Illustrated Botched the Michael Sam Story'

One more time: public interest. It's kind of a cornerstone of news coverage.

There's public interest and benefit to getting most crime news out in the open as soon as possible.

There is NONE to outing someone against their wishes, except to the selfish asshole "reporter."

 

I don't know how I can be any more specific.

 

No, I think he is pretty well confining it to the topic of whether it's proper to reveal a person's sexual orientation.

 

It is interesting that the sports media is better at keeping secrets than some of the gay magazines and websites who have threatened to oout people over the years.

 

And I wonder if that possibility, however remote, is what caused Wertheim and/or SI to handle it the way they did.

As a pure thought experiment, let's assume that you know for an absolute, 100 percent certainty that Michael Sam is coming out in an hour to ESPN and the New York Times. You have it, too. He can't turn back.

Do you run with it then? My absolute only concern here would be that he might decide at the last second not to go through with it. Otherwise: "Mizzou's Sam will come out tonight." Not a second thought.

In the real world, I'd probably try like hell to get him to bypass his middle men and announce it via Twitter or elsewhere first. Whatever I could do to try to cut ESPN and the NYT's knees out on it.

 

You have a very narrow definition of "public interest."

 

Not really.

Someone's sexuality is about as private as it gets.

 

Not when that someone hires a public relations firm to announce it.

 

No, it's still his story to tell.

 

But that's the problem here. You could never make this situation an absolute.

Yes, by all means, let's make him tailor his dignity and carefully measured approach at the last minute to satisfy your demands for control of the announcement.

 

It's just a thought experiment.

Assume he can't change his mind.

Do you go with it?

 

That doesn't serve the issues at hand.