May 25, 2012
Post A Comment
So says TVWeek Open Mic writer Chuck Ross in this provocative blog entry, which you can read by clicking here.
Or maybe, for once, the New York Times got it right.
Who gives a crap who’s gay and who’s not. This guy is an actor. He reads words that someone else wrote, and he does it very well. But that’s it. That is all we really need to know, and when you come right down to it, it’s all we’re entitled to know.
Very, very tired of all the ID scorekeeping. People are people and we should judge them by their actions rather than “what they are.” I mean, what you’re saying is “Hey, this guy is gay, and it’s important that you know that and view him through that lens.”
This is utter BS, and it makes you pathetic.
I totally disagree with your article. As Mr. Ferraro delineated, in 2012 sexual orientation is, and should be, only one part of who we are. He’s gay, big deal. He’s 6′ 4″ tall, big deal. He had green eyes, big deal. He’s right handed, big deal. (I don’t know his actual height or eye color or hand orientation, I’m just making a point.) Contrary to your outrage, I believe The Times was being very professional in the way they handled the story. If they wanted to be a sensationalistic “rag”, they could have done so and probably made money doing so. They decided to stay professional. Good for them.
Chuck is wrong. First, it wasn’t a bit necessary to the story in the first place. It is time for everyone to move on. We need to stop labeling everyone. He is a good actor, nothing else is necessary for us to know. If Jim wanted to do the big publicity grabbing coming out he and his agent can go to publications or television programs that specialize in that. There are plenty of those around. It isn’t what the Times does regularly and it wasn’t at all relevant to this story.
Sorry … I’m a daily reader of TVWeek but I have to go with The NYT on this one. The story is about theater. The play encompasses gay themes. The actor is gay. His quote relates. To make the headline of the story about Jim Parsons being gay isn’t Journalism 101–it’s sensationalist journalism. If subsequent writers want to pick up a single fact and run with it, such is the nature of reporting. While some actors may be okay with “coming out” stories, that’s their choice. It seems that this news (which sadly, should not be news at all in 2012) was reported in a way that was acceptable to Parsons, and referenced appropriately in a theater story.
I agree with the other commentators. If anyone is sensationalizing the story, it’s TV Week. Jim Parsons’ being gay is just another part of who he is. It’s not a shock to anyone.
That it was revealed in the context of his Broadway role in a play dealing with gay themes is completely apropos and it’s you, Chuck, who’s blowing everything out of proportion.
What are you trying to do? Get more page views? Well, it looks like it worked. Cheap shot, dude.
Email (will not be published)