Media pay undue attention to sexuality

It is hard to go a day in high school without hearing somebody utter the phrase “that’s so gay” in the hallways. This sort of passive homophobia, which has grown rampant over the last few years, has not only gained popularity in communities of immature teenagers, but also, unfortunately, in the media.
“Meet Apple’s new boss, the most powerful gay man in Silicon Valley,” reads a Gawker headline; “Tim Cook is now the most powerful gay man in the world,” reads another from Business Insider.

Newspapers both in print and online were inundated with stories of Cook’s alleged sexuality soon after the announcement of his promotion to CEO of Apple Computers, but his outing by Gawker and this sudden attention to his sexual preference is unwarranted and insensitive.

Subjected to clearly unwelcome scrutiny by the media, Cook is not yet publicly out, but the press continues to broadcast his alleged sexuality with little respect for his and his loved ones’ privacy. While this may be typical behavior for tabloids like Gawker, reputable publications such as Business Insider should not be stooping to this level. This brings up the question of not only why the media feel the need to label individuals as gay or straight at all, but whether or not the public truly cares about a man or woman’s sexuality.

Unfortunately, though a person’s sexuality dictates no more over an individual’s personality than his race or gender, some people do care. Even in a country whose constitution preaches equality, prejudice is rampant. By focusing so much attention on sexuality, the media are only inflaming these petty biases.

It is expected that Cook’s new tenure as CEO of the world’s leading tech company would garner media attention, as Steve Jobs was nearly of celebrity status, but this undue concern about sexuality should be a thing of the past. Both the media and the American community have to understand that people have different sexualities just as they have different racial backgrounds and religious beliefs. There is no reason to categorize an individual based off of arbitrary characteristics irrelevant to his or her achievements.

Cook has been unfairly labeled by the media regarding a personal aspect of his life, and for what, exactly? Readership? His sexuality has no impact whatsoever on his ability to lead one of the world’s most profitable companies, so why mention it at all?

The media hardly ever comment on the sex lives of heterosexual tech CEOs; no one is ever labeled “the most powerful straight man in America” and people don’t walk through the hallways exclaiming “that’s so hetero!” Sexual orientation should be treated like hair color: If it is not directly relevant, it should not be splashed across headlines.

What the media should be covering is Cook’s past leadership as COO and his ability to keep Apple’s stock up while continuing to invent efficient, aesthetically stunning products. Those facts are relevant. To fuss over Cook’s sexual orientation is a frivolous pursuit which benefits nobody and only serves to enforce prejudices.