NBC defended its decision not mention Australian diver Matthew Mitcham’s sexual orientation with a series of answers that were more spin than fact.
AfterElton.com reached NBC spokesman Greg Hughes, who was not aware there had been any controversy over the way the network covered Mitcham during Saturday night’s men’s 10-meter platform diving finals. Mitcham, who is publicly gay and had his partner in the stands, stunned the diving world by winning gold. NBC did not mention Mitcham being openly gay, which cause Outsports and other websites to take the network to task.
When asked why at no point during the coverage did NBC mention Mitcham was gay or that his partner was in the stands, Hughes [told AfterElton], “In virtually every case, we don’t discuss an athlete’s sexual orientation.”
When it was pointed out that in fact the network does exactly that by telling viewers about Olympic athletes’ various spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, and even in one case a heterosexual “love triangle” Hughes responded, “Not in every case. Not every athlete has a personal discussion. I could show you 500 athletes we didn’t show. We don’t show everyone. We don’t show every ceremony.” …
“It’s not possible to cover the entire personal story of every athlete regarding their performance. … It’s just not possible to single out coverage.”
Let’s take Hughes’ defense one by one:
“In virtually every case, we don’t discuss an athlete’s sexual orientation.”
Wrong. By showing or describing a male athlete’s wife or girlfriend, or a female’s husband or boyfriend, NBC, by default, is discussing their sexual orientation. They might as well put “Straight” in an on-screen caption.
“Not every athlete has a personal discussion.”
True, and no one expects more than a fraction of athletes to be profiled.
However, NBC DID discuss Mitcham’s private life by mentioning that he had quit the sport and was dealing with “personal issues” (he suffered from depression). NBC did think his personal story interesting enough to mention, but they left out the one part that would have made viewers sit up and take notice, a point Mitcham did not hide — he is gay.
NBC had to be aware of this fact since its online profile of Mitcham said this about the diver: “Mitcham made headlines in Australia when he revealed to the Sydney Morning Herald that he is gay, becoming one of the first Australian athletes to do so. Mitcham said he hopes he can find a way to bring his partner, Lachlan, to support him Beijing — though he can’t afford it on his own”
“It’s not possible to cover the entire personal story of every athlete regarding their performance.”
Fair enough, but wrong in this case. You had an openly gay male athlete competing, which NBC’s website admits is rare. You had the only non-Chinese diver to win a gold medal, doing it with a near-perfect dive, making viewers wanting to know more about this person. It would have taken one of NBC’s two diving commentators, Ted Robinson and Cynthia Potter, all of 10 seconds to mention that Mitcham is gay. You can bet they would have mentioned had he been the first Muslim diver with a medal chance or the first Mongolian.
I am not yet ready to accuse NBC of homophobia, since we don’t know exactly why its commentators and producers whiffed on mentioning Mitcham’s orientation. But I will accuse them of journalistic incompetence, for missing a major angle about a gold medal-winning athlete who beat competitors thought to be unbeatable, an angle not unnoticed by other journalists covering the event. The judges would have given them 1.0’s across the board for a belly flop.
Related: NBC does not discuss Mitcham’s sexuality.
By Jim Buzinski
40 responses so far ↓
1 Jason // Aug 25, 2008 at 7:54 pm
NBC didn’t mention it because the American media no longer serves any type of informative function for society. it’s a venal, craven group of profitmaking companies that refuse to say anything remotely controversial about anything for fear of reducing their profits.Did NBC say a single thing that wasn’t completely glowing about China and the Chinese government all Olympics? Of course not.It’s the same thing here. They refuse to say anything at all that might offend some shithead in Oklahoma.
2 Scott T. // Aug 25, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Jim, Cyd. Do you guys have any friends in the straight press who could call NBC to task for this outrage? Perhaps some buddies at ESPN or Sports Illustrated. The excuse NBC used to justify their coverage of Matt is indefensible.
I hate to think that it will take the straight press to get wide coverage of this issue but it might.
3 RBearSAT // Aug 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Dang, give this thing a rest. I took a day away from this “outrage” to ponder it and then went back and looked at Outsports coverage of the Games. Some points to consider: 1) Yea, I bet there was this HUGE control room debate over whether to show Mitcham’s partner in the stands or not. 2) We’re outraged at them not mentioning he is gay when on the primary GLBT sports site the top categories under the headlines are “Hot photos of the Games”, “Dutch gymnast gallery”, “Hot jocks of the Games”, and (my favorite) “Lesbian: Shut up gays”, and 3) we ask to be treated equal yet we scream when they don’t call us “gay.” Run through those points and tell me how we have our own act together. No wonder MSM doesn’t take us seriously.
4 David M. // Aug 25, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I have to wonder, if NBC television had been around in 1936, enjoying exclusive Olympics broadcast rights for a US domestic audience, how would it have covered the, uh, Jesse Owens thing?
In silhouette?
5 RBearSAT // Aug 25, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Are you calling NBC homophobic? Because that’s what it seems like. I hope there’s some basis to your statement. Why don’t we start an NBC boycott while we’re at it.
6 canmark // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I’ve been thinking about this issue, and I still don’t have any issue with NBC’s coverage. Yes, it would have been nice if they could have mentioned that Mitcham is out and proud. But in that event there were 2 American divers, 2 Chinese divers, a good Russian diver and a 14-year old Thomas Dale. Plus Matthew Mitcham. Those are a lot of stories to cover, and in their analysis of the dives, I don’t think that Matthew Mitcham’s sexual orientation was the first thing on the commentators’ minds. The surpise that he pulled off the win on the final dive with an unbelievably high score was much more pertinent. Now that he’s a known gold medalist, one might expect that in future events, one might expect to see a profile piece on him with details about his coming out. But it just seems to me that we (gay people) want to use Matthew Mitcham for our own cause, and all this whining about NBC’s ommissions doesn’t serve us well, I don’t think. Matthew proved himself on the field, and I think we should, too. Why not let Outsports’ good coverage of LGBT athletes stand as our record, rather than complaining about what others did or didn’t do?
7 Jim Buzinski // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Hey Mark: 10 seconds and it is done. And the “good Russian” diver had zero compelling story as far as I can tell.
8 golfer // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“He was joined in celebration after the meet by his mother and his girlfriend.”
They would have said that if he were dating a chick.
In their slight defense, maybe they were worried about confusing viewers, or felt that throwing in a reference to his partner or boyfriend needed a longer explanation that there wasn’t time for (or previously prepared). But still, it’s one sentence. And every other (straight) significant other gets mentioned.
9 John // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:50 am
Consider how John Kerry was slammed for even mentioning that Cheney’s daughter was gay in that debate in ‘04. Now, think about how NBC probably worried that they were caught in a no win situation given the fact that, while we might see Matthew as a proud hero, many others in this puritanical society would consider it an insult. Afterall, even the Cheney’s themselves thouht it an insult to have it even mentioned that their daughter was lesbian….and, this was after a rather thoughtful and gay positive statement by Kerry. The fact remains that, while we hunger for out and proud heros, much of the rest of the world doesn’t want any part of it. Just imagine some bigotted, racist homophobe trying to decide which is worse: 1. a Chinese Communist winning the gold or 2. a gay man. I shutter to even think of what might go through the head of such a person.
10 straight guy in the big apple // Aug 26, 2008 at 1:42 am
My guess is that NBC figures the Olympic Games are a fabulous product (they spent a billion dollars producing the event), and from a corporate standpoint the last thing they want is anything “controversial” to deal with. I don’t know if network management is homophobic, but they are no doubt risk-averse, and their calculation at the moment is that the subject of gayness is something they don’t want to tackle. They want their presentation of the Games to look just like a box of Wheaties.As a society, we haven’t evolved to the point where a big outfit like NBC is comfortable “going there.” But from my admittedly naive perspective as a straight guy, tremendous progress has been made of late. I notice that Hallmark now offers a gay-friendly greeting card, which is a pretty good barometer that things are moving in the right direction. I’d be willing to bet money that by the 2012 Olympics in London, the media will find the courage to cover gay athletes. They just need to feel a little more secure about it before they take that step.
11 Andrew // Aug 26, 2008 at 6:17 am
It is all about money. Without a question NBC did not want to have to explain to its advertisers and to its homophobic viewers why it was featuring such a gay-positive message as a wonderful young man who was the best at his game and also had a warm and supportive older lover. “Maybe” if they had both been the same age we might have seen some coverage.
12 Scott T. // Aug 26, 2008 at 6:58 am
I’m calling them homophic. Yes. There also a bunch a hippocrates. It looks like some in the mainstream media are catching on to this story as well.
http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/11149/aussie_diver_matthew_mitcham_is_gay,_its_no_big_deal,_and_were_confused
13 Lenny // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:34 am
Did any station in the world mention that he’s gay at all during the live-report? I wasn’t sure that I would be home for live-watching. So I taped it at Eurosport and re-watched it yesterday having an eye and ear if there were anything shown or mentioned. They had two German commentators and they didn’t say anything private about any diver, not even about the German one in the final. The only thing besides the dives itself they commented on was the this british boy is only 14. And there was a brief comment about the meaning of Matthew Helm’s tattoos. They didn’t seem to be much familiar with the sport at all not to emntion with it’s participants. One of them even declared the Chinese as the winner after his last dive, beeing sure non other would be better. So I wonder if journalist really aare as prepared for there tasks as they should be. The camera however showed the Australian fans after Matthews dives (they didnt show the ceremony), especially after the last one, but I doubt that the reporters recognized Lachlan as his bf.
14 RBearSAT // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:42 am
I think you need to review your analogies a little more closely. Jesse Owens did a courageous thing when he ran in 1932. There was so much more behind that move than Mitcham diving in the Olympics. Mitcham didn’t come out publicly until an off the cuff statement in the Sydney Morning-Herald in May. There is NO comparison between the two events. I applaud Mitcham for his accomplishments and courage but I don’t even equate him with Jesse Owens. Sorry about that Matthew but these are dramatically different events.
15 Jeff // Aug 26, 2008 at 9:37 am
Let it go already. If they had mentioned it, you’d all be bitching. “There’s more to us than our sexuality blah blah blah…”
16 Chris S // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:02 am
I had the same reaction — ticked off — that they didn’t mention it.The only thing that makes me hesitate to criticize, though, is the fact that in every interview Matthew did before the Games, he only mentioned his partner’s first name (Lachlan) and his partner was never quoted in any interview. It may have just been reading between the lines, but it looked like perhaps his partner was still at least partly closeted. That is apparently NOT the case, as it turns out, but given what I knew at the time, if I were a producer I might have hesitated to throw the guy’s face on international television.Still, even if there were concerns there, it doesn’t excuse the fact that they didn’t mention that the ONLY out gay male athlete at the games won gold. And with a record winning dive, too.
17 John // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:47 am
I love having the most sexiest guy in the world in my life (for over tenyears) & do not feel like I want to share that with anyone. Then you have the homos who want to make the world gay centric, I guess. Give it a rest. It is what it is at this point-uncomfortable, awkward, etc. Besides, the country is at war. Show some respect for those who died so you can go around screaming at the top of your lungs that you are gay.
18 Andy Armitage // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I quite agree with the main post here. As an ex-journo, I, too, would say they’d missed on a good angle. Especially since it was known he couldn’t afford to take his partner, but it was made possible by the Johnson & Johnson scheme for families of athletes. As your post says, we can’t say whether it was blatant homophobia, but there’s a lot of self-censorship going on: Dare I mention this? What will the bosses think? Somehow, mentioning a gay person’s sexuality is “dirty” and mentioning a fine, upstanding heterosexual’s sexuality (by default, by showing their spouses cheering them on - and there’s nothing wrong with that) is OK. That’s bollocks.
19 Jim Buzinski // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“Did any station in the world mention that he’s gay at all during the live-report?”
I know for a fact the BBC did mention this during the competition. As for others outside the U.S., I don’t know.
20 SailguyOH // Aug 26, 2008 at 4:00 pm
It was covered correctly on foxnews.com and on the foxnews radio reports on Monday. I was happy to see that.
21 Daniel // Aug 26, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I think it is important to remember as well that NBC mainly covers the US Olympians. They really didn’t highlight any athletes with full profiles unless they were from the US.
22 Charlie Carson // Aug 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Yes, the Russian diver did get enough of a casual backstory to tell us that his coach/mother is a she-bit*h who yells at him all the time (which made the fact that he never smiled all the more poignant). So Jim, stick to your guns (I know you will!). Ten seconds is not too much to ask when we heard over and over and over that Finchum and Boudia were paired together early, train together, are staying together in the Village, that Finchum has shot up from a Thomas Daley-type to over 6 feet, etc. etc. etc.For that matter, there have been a number of times that Greg Louganis’s story has been recapped over the years on U.S. network television in which they mention his HIV+ status but avoid using the “G” word. In these cases I always yell at the TV like Alvin in “Torch Song Trilogy” does to his mother, something like, “It’s one syllable with three little letters — G-A-Y — GAY. It’s not hard!”
23 Charlie Carson // Aug 26, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Oops — Arnold!
24 Christian Flicker // Aug 26, 2008 at 6:03 pm
NBC didn’t have to say he was gay. You’d have to be blind to not know he was gay, I’m just sayin’
Still it woulda been nice to have the nod.
25 Greg Congdon // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I first caught wind of Matthew thanks to outsports before the diving competition. So of course I was compelled to watch. I was heavily disappointed in NBC’s coverage because any time some one wins some thing spetacular in individual sporting events we hear about how he or she has a new born baby or is engaged to be married or has been married how many years. For once thanks to Matthew, we had a world wide shining moment. Thankfully I am sure Australian news, England news, and much of the world news did not dis us as bad as NBC. Ignoring the fact is worse then ignorance itself.
26 James from Melbourne // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:11 pm
As soon as Matt won his medal the main media outlets here in Australia ran articles that referred to ‘the openly gay Mitchum’. The blogs that followed the article were immediately bombarded with critisisms along the lines of “what relevance is his sexuality? I look forward to the day when the media no longer finds it necessary to mention it. Only then will we have true equality..” It seems the press will be damned if they do, and damned if they don’t on this issue.For me, if an athlete has come out then its perfectly acceptable for the press to mention it, but its not compulsory!Have a look at Matt’s Australian TV interview the next morning (Yum Cha episode 14). This caused similar outrage (especially the gold robe comment). But I thought it was great. Matts interview starts about 20 mins in:http://au.sports.yahoo.com/olympics/video/-/olympic-shows/yum-cha/
27 Dale Pflum // Aug 27, 2008 at 1:27 am
It is obvious that NBC is homophobic. Their excuses were completly lame for not saying Matthew was gay.
28 RBearSAT // Aug 27, 2008 at 6:17 am
Yea, it’s become so easy to play the “homophobic” card these days. I hope we don’t get to the point that the only thing we can provide as an argument is someone or something is “homophobic.” If we don’t get our latte at Starbucks we can use “homophobic.” If we’re denied tickets to a Cowboys football game we can use “homophobic.” Personally if I ever use it I’m going to have a HECK of a lot more evidence to back the statement because using it like “wolf” will diminish its meaning.
29 Stanley A. // Aug 27, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I don’t know but I can swear that one of the NBC commentators mention he was openly gay after his big dive to beat the Chinese. You might want view the coverage again. I think I’m right.
30 Jim Buzinski // Aug 27, 2008 at 2:12 pm
NBC Olympics president apologizes:
“We regret that we missed the opportunity to tell Matthew Mitcham’s story. We apologize for this unintentional omission.”
So, NBC defenders, what say you now?
31 Scott T. // Aug 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm
You don’t apologize unless you know you’ve done something wrong.
You tell em Jim.
32 RJ // Aug 27, 2008 at 7:06 pm
In my opinion, I would say in all honesty that NBC’s statement sounds like a well-worded politically correct response to a series of politically motivated attacks against them regarding what should have been a non-political event.
33 jasper // Aug 27, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Why does it matter if NBC didn’t go into his personal life? I don’t see why its such a big deal.
34 Rafael Morales // Aug 28, 2008 at 12:04 am
I’m not surprised a bit. NBC coverage fell short more than once. I was really upset during the opening ceremonies, when the Puertorican delegation entered the stadium, and the commentator, I think it was Matt Lauer, said something like “now that I see the delegation from Puerto Rico, the US team is coming up, don’t go away”, and the went to commercials. He didn’t say anything else about the P.R. delegation, it’s flag beaer, nothing! I can understand that NBC would give more time during the games to the US athletes, but too often they didn’t give enough air time to other countries’ athletes whose performances deserved more recognition.
35 Joe R // Aug 28, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Matt has been quoted as saying that he did not want to be known as a gay athlete, but rather as the Aussie that won gold. Then after years of hard work his dream came true. He was reported as the Aussie who did the best olympic dive ever and broke the Chinese gold streak. Exactly what he hoped for.
And now you have a problem with it? This is other people using his excellence for their own agendas.
But damn, ain’t he just gorgeous!
36 RBearSAT // Aug 28, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sorry I’ve been wrapped up in something with a lot more meaningful impact in society called the DNC. I figured I’d check in on this rabbit trail one more time. The apology from NBC was PR. Anyone who couldn’t see that doesn’t read major corp. PR very well. This is a rabbit trail issue in the bigger scheme of things. Drag this out all you want but it’s a small item.
37 Jon // Nov 21, 2008 at 11:17 am
Big deal. NBC has freedom not to mention the subjects that cater to agendas. See the First Admendment.The drive-by media can say whatever they want, it’s a Bill of Rights thing. Just like this blog.One has the right to say whatever, but no one has any “right to be heard”. The “right to be heard” is nowhere in the Bill of Rights, but Freedom of Speech is in the Bill of Rights.
38 Chike // Jan 1, 2009 at 2:42 am
Homosexuality is a sin and endangers people’s lives. No one should be celebrated for engaging in such behavior.
39 rlk // Jul 19, 2009 at 11:46 pm
They do not have to mention he is gay at all. Just show his partner in the stands and say that this is his partner. Everyone will get it themselves. This is to me is the best way to handle it.
40 rick // Sep 21, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Again guys and gals….why does it matter during sports media coverage if a person is gay or str8?Gays need to realize that they alread get more coverage in the media than they’re entitled to. Percentage wise, how many gays are there in the US? And percentage wise, how many stories ABOUT SEXUALITY are about gays? An overwhelming majority of stories ABOUT sexuality are about gays. At no point during stories about other subjects should sexuality enter the conversation.And you all who advocate for sexuality to be mentioned should be ashamed of yourselves. Your selfish attitude is holding back to potential for gays everywhere.
Leave a Comment