The truth, the truth, what is the truth? Gawker claims:
In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, [Fox news anchor] Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality. “It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.” Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.
In response, Smith and Ailes issued an angry denial, calling Gawker’s allegations “100% false and a complete fabrication,” and arguing much of the “evidence,” which came from anonymous sources, doesn’t add up. Elsewhere online are even stronger responses from Smith.
Given the ceaseless attacks on Fox News from left-liberal partisans, I’d need more to convince me that this isn’t just another hatchet job.
22 Comments for “Gossip as Attack Weapon”
posted by Houndentenor on
ROFLOL
Sorry, no comment. I’m laughing too hard. The whole thing is hilarious.
posted by Lori Heine on
So this is all just a great, big, fat, hairy, scary left-wing plot from beginning to end.
Mmmm-kay.
It is now official. IGF has become a parody of itself.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Exactly.
Since we are now in self-parody mode, would it be out of place for me to suggest The Evil Camilla as the culprit? I don’t have any reason to think she’s actually behind it, but what the hell? She’s evil, pure and simple, at least according to the Globe, and if she is the mastermind, it adds “international” to “great, big, fat, hairy, scary left-wing plot”.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m quite certain that Camilla is behind it all.
And that new strain of smallpox for which there is no vaccine. And those strange storms on the surface of the sun…
posted by Doug on
This doesn’t even pass the laugh test, Stephen. Faux News is your world and the left has nothing to do with it. Do feel sorry for Shep Smith if he is gay. What he has gone through is pretty demeaning not to mention disgusting. He should have more self respect.
posted by Houndentenor on
Shep is gay. I would even argue that he’s “out”. He and his boyfriend are seen all over NYC together. He’s no more in the closet than Anderson Cooper was 3 years ago. He just hasn’t issued a press release.
What I think is odd here is the knee-jerk reaction to attack the messenger rather than find out the truth. I don’t know if this story is true and probably neither does Stephen. This isn’t the only story going around about Shep and his Fox News bosses wanting him not to make a public announcement that he’s gay. The same stories went around about Anderson Cooper and CNN before he tweeted nonchalantly that he was indeed gay.
posted by Jorge on
Humph. This is the first time I’ve ever seen Stephen Miller stick up for anyone at Fox News.
Given the ceaseless attacks on Fox News from left-liberal partisans, I’d need more to convince me that this isn’t just another hatchet job.
Oh, that it certainly is, but a crude bludgeon can still hit where it’s supposed to. The question is now asked, “Is Shephard Smith gay?” “Is he out? Is he in the closet?” And if you look at the responses by everyone, you see that he has been outed.
(The only famous confirmed straight person I can think of who is that discrete with their personal life is Bill O’Reilly. There’s others but I don’t know if they’re straight or gay.)
And outing people for no other reason than because they are considered to be part of the “right” and are not doing what they are “supposed to do” is a practice that has happened before. One of those gossipy articles said that some people ask the question of why Mr. Smith hasn’t “come out” yet, notwithstanding the fact that this whole affair allegedly started because he did come out. To make being gay a caricature and a shame because of some imagined and exagerrated homophobia on the part of one’s associates is something that only the far-left is known for.
If Shephard Smith is gay (which appears very likely at this point), this is an attempt to punish, insult, or attack him for being gay.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, and Mr. Miller, you forgot to mention that the site initially got many important details of its alleged story wrong:
Like that Mr. Smith was promoted before the July party in question, and that the alleged homophobe who made a big stink about his boyfriend wasn’t even his boss, and never even attended his party.
And yet after its corrections the site stands by its story? What’s left to stand by after you’ve been disemboweled? Gay as accusation, that’s what.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
World News Daily has an account of the flap titled Fox News goes to war over allegedly ‘gay’ anchor WITH a poll:
So far (as on Monday, May 5 at 11:30 CST) 40% of WND’s readership opts for “I don’t care about his sexual orientation, as long as he keeps it to himself and reports the news”. Ah, The Evil Camilla thwarted, once again.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Frankly, I do not know — or particularly care — as he does not seem terribly too attractive or compassionate, for that matter —
However, their is no shortage of people who have said that they saw him and his boyfriend at this or that bar or cafe or whatnot in NY city (Urh…must…resist urge to start singing Pet Shop Boys song)
The sense with Anderson, was that someone at CNN — who pulls the proverbial strings — felt it would be best if the general public didn’t know the truth, but eventually that ceased to become much of an issue.
It was laughable to see the ‘none denial’ statements.
I suspect a similar thing may be at play here.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
First off all, Fox News is — with VERY few exemptions — a joke. It is, basically, shrill, talking points, pravda.
I want it now an again at the gym and it is still a joke. They were all gung-ho about spinning news items in order to help promote their single-party fantasy.
Then, when it blows up in their face like yesterdays lube….they get really quiet and try to move onto the next bit of pissing pravda, which they try to pass off as news.
I say this as someone who does not always agree with what the ‘liberal media’ says either.
Second off all, Fox News has generally had pretty pi** poor coverage of anything to do with the gay community.
Gays and gay rights are generally used to get voters behind their one-party fantasy. Much like the repeated cultural war silliness about a “war” on Christians.
OK, It has gotten marginally better — depending on who is doing the story. Part of it is because its not quite as effective as it once was.
The number of ‘Independent swing voters’ that they can manipulate with gay marriage stories has gone down quite a bit.
posted by Jorge on
What I think is odd here is the knee-jerk reaction to attack the messenger rather than find out the truth.
That is indeed odd, here. And I include Doug and Tom Jefferson in that category.
Elsewhere, the truth has been uncovered, and the truth is that the messenger is a gross exercise in incompetence, mendacity, or both.
It looks like this story is going nowhere fast. That is what is deserved. However, certain facts remain:
Gawker got a flamboyant story wrong.
Gawker stood by it, even after getting it wrong.
This raises grave suspicions about its motives.
Fox News is the target of repeated and unfounded attacks.
Fox News was just now the target of yet another unfounded attack.
This will be remembered and cited in the evaluation of future stories about Gawker and Fox News. If anyone here does not like that, then I respectfully ask what you are doing on a website whose community frequently divides along ideological lines.
posted by Houndentenor on
How did we seek so low in our culture that tabloid journalism warrants serious discussion at all. I don’t ever go to Gawker for the same reason that I don’t read the National Enquirer. They make things up. Duh. Are you that late to the party? But then so does Fox News so six of one/half dozen of the other as far as I’m concerned.
And it’s funny that one of the links is to a story about David Brock. There’s another one. He was paid by right wing donors to make up and publish lies about Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton among others. Now he’s on a crusade to assuage his guilt over his past libels, but frankly I’m not impressed. All trash as far as I’m concerned.
posted by Jorge on
How did we seek so low in our culture that tabloid journalism warrants serious discussion at all.
That is not my affair. At various times Gawker gossip, Fred Phelps, and the gays as sexual predator myth have all been elevated to the level of serious discussion. When that happens there is a need to dispose of it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For the record, the Gawker is insisting as of tonight that its account is materially accurate.
It has not, however, as yet fessed up to The Evil Camilla’s role. It continues to suggest that the leaks came from Fox insiders.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Actually, “Gawker” is not the first ‘media source’ to suggest that he-who-will-not-be-named is not entirely heterosexual.
I do not really care about “Gawker” says about most things. I also care less about whether or not the Fox News anchor is gay or not.
However, Gawker is not the first to handle the issue as something of an ‘open secret’. The documentary “Outrage” (2009) had him among a laundry list of closeted, conservative gays.
I think it is rather sad (and homophobic) to define this as an insult or some type of “attack”.
Saying that one is gay or straight can only be treated as an attack, if their is something wrong with being gay or straight.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t think the proverbial knickers are in a twist over the “outing” but over the insinuation that Smith’s Fox News bosses are homophobic. Sorry but any dispute over Smiths homosexuality is ludicrous. It’s not a secret and hasn’t been. He’s made no effort to pretend he is straight or to hide his relationship with a Fox producer. There is nothing bad or wrong or shameful about being gay. Pretending that someone who is openly seen about town with a same sex partner is straight only perpetuates the homophobia.
posted by Jorge on
Insinuation usually implies something being indirectly stated, Houndentenor.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Insinuation usually implies something being indirectly stated, Houndentenor.
The Gawker piece asserts that Fox executives’ stated fears were that a Smith-out would offend Fox’s homophobic audience audience. The insinuation is that the stated reason was a cover for homophobia on the part of Fox executives.
The delicacies aside, Stephen does seem to object to the fact that the Gawker called Fox out, not that the Gawker outed Smith.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. I missed that part about the stated fears.
What I caught directly was that Mr. Smith’s incorrectly cited boss flipped out when he brought his boyfriend to a party and did not want him to come out. No need to go any farther than that. That’s a direct accusation of homophobia. The rest is window-dressing.
posted by Lori Heine on
There is an easy way to clear this up. Very direct, very to-the-point. How has Fox subsequently dealt with Smith’s orientation?
Let’s get all the “he saids, she saids” of the past out of the way. What is Fox saying about that matter — Smith’s (alleged) orientation — now?
Are they owning up to knowledge of it? Or are they — as appears — denying it? Is he gay, or is he straight? If Fox is dealing with the allegations as if Smith is a poor, “smeared” straight person, when he is, in fact, gay, then nothing BUT homophobia is possible on Fox’s part.
Let’s not have any more crap about liberal conspiracies to spin this story, or about which of our commenters intended what, who’s on whose “side,” et cetera, ad nauseum. And as for the old dodge of “it’s nobody’s business” what Smith’s orientation is, most of the personalities at Fox have their heterosexual orientations in our faces all the time.
That’s none of our business, either. Or at least, most of us don’t care. If Fox’s audience does have an issue with Smith’s orientation, one way or the other, then hell, yes, it is in large part homophobic.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I suspect — or at least have little trouble believing — that “how the audience [advertisers?] will respond” is a factor in whether or not any news anchor is as honest about his or her orientation.
Anderson Cooper — for example — orientation was well known to many people in the gay community and was probably known to many of his coworkers. However, he still had to do a bit of ‘playing it straight’, for awhile.
Why? Well, I suspect that he was ‘encouraged’ to do so, because honesty might turn off CNN audience members or advertisers or something to that effect.
I suspect that with Fox news anchor Shepard Smith, a somewhat similar bit of , ‘encouragement’ has been going on here.
He play be ‘encouraged’ to ‘play it straight’ longer because its Fox News — fair and balanced, to be sure — but some of the language being used here is pretty embarrassing. An Attack? Really?