I thought this would be an interesting discussion. I agree that if you are a political or influential and you are conducting yourself in a matter that is hurting lgbt rights or social progress then it is newsworthy for you to be outed. If your personal life is inconsequential to a message you are spreading or your actions, I don't think it's newsworthy.
Outing is an act of violence, and the fact that people still can be outed and it's newsworthy proves how far we still have to go.
Not even if you are a politician fighting against LGBT rights? It seems like those policies are a greater act of violence than the outing, especially if the outing can potentially stop or hurt the support against the LGBT rights.
not even. it still inflicts violence upon that politician.
So regardless of how many people are being hurt by not outing this person. Keeping that person safe and allowing them to come out themselves (assuming they will at some point) is more important than exposing the hypocrisy of a politician and the shaky foundation of policies they are creating/enforcing? I'm not talking about some random person or random celebrity or anyone else for that matter whose personal life/sexual preference is inconsequential to the general population.
Who stands to benefit from outing a public figure though? Nobody, really. Best case scenario, said politican resigns and is replaced by someone who isn't gay who continues said policies. That still inflicts pain on the community as a whole because it reinforces the fact that there is a certain Way to Be Gay. You don't have to be out to be gay.
Not even if they are prohibiting others by expressing or being comfortable with their sexuality through the policies they create or enforce?
I'm not sure. I feel like your first example is pretty vengeful - almost in a, "Ha! He's a homophobic dick, of course he's gay!" kind of way. Maybe that's why people find it newsworthy: they buy into that. Being publicly gay is still not completely accepted in Western society, specifically the American media side of things. So while I would say that it shouldn't be newsworthy, it still totally is. Whether or not that's a good thing, I'm not entirely sure of yet.
Well for the first example, part of it is that, but also it's the fact that if you are a policy creator or enforcer then your personal virtue gives a level of strength to those policies (say anti-gay policies like in Russia) and motivates people/citizens to follow you and have faith in your decisions. These policies are hurting people and are being upheld, to a degree, by the fact that people have faith you believe in them yourself. So, more so to protect the people being hurt by the policies and expose the hypocrisy in the legislature/enforcer and the true lack of support and morals behind those policies to shine a light on the reality of the situation and push people away from supporting it.
I agree that random people should be in control of the story of their personal lives, as far as the media is concerned. Given that the Gawker CEO dude had a wife, I would hope someone would tell her he was not being faithful. I think "family values" politicians are fair game for outing. Hypocrisy and the power to hurt others makes it seem okay.