NBC Host Weighs In On Mitcham Snub

Local News, By Tim D, 17th September, 2008

While Matthew Mitcham travels around Europe with his boyfriend, readying himself for a triumphant return to our shores a newly minted hero next month, the waves of his Olympic gold medal are still being felt around the world.

Weighing into the debate on whether NBC intentionally “forgot” to mention Mitcham’s sexuality in their coverage, AfterElton.com has spoken with NBC’s Primetime Host for the Beijing Olympics, Bob Costas, about the whole affair.

During NBC’s two evening’s worth of platform diving coverage, neither Mitcham’s status as the only out gay male athlete, nor his moving personal story was ever mentioned. This information was instead replaced by the commentators with a vague reference to Mitcham overcoming “personal issues”.

“Why it wasn’t mentioned by the people covering the event, that’s up to them to answer,” says Costas, after admitting it should have been mentioned. “There’s lots of different dynamics, in all these things. So I’m not being critical of them for not mentioning it. But I think – generally speaking – especially if the guy is out…”

“Do you see from a gay perspective how enormously powerful this would have been for the gay community to have one of their members acknowledged in that way in that moment?” asked AfterElton.

“Yeah,” said Costas, “I agree with you on all of that. And it certainly seems to me like a worthy topic. I just don’t want to appear as if I’m criticizing any of my colleagues.”

Mitcham may have created little splash when he entered the water, but the ripples of that dive are still being felt.

Read the full After Elton interview here.

Your Thoughts

Anthony Mahera

said ages ago

I agree............his sexuality shouldn't come into it. He should be recognised for his sporting achievements and not his sexuality.

Scott of Coolum

said ages ago

On a personal level I too agree as my sexual orientation is as salient to my sense of identity as my eye colour. For people whose sexual orientation is really salient to their identity then I can imagine that Mitcham's sexuality being openly discussed could potentially be reaffirming.

lanimae61

said ages ago

The reason his sexuality should be mentioned is simple, another athlete would no doubt have had their hubby or wife mentioned. Should they be lucky enough to be knocking boots without that pesky wedding nonsense, then the coverage would have menioned boyfriend/fiance/fiancee/girlfriend. It's only right if there other half is the same sex that they should be mentioned in the same warm, proud and triumphant tones. Only someone who has never had to worry about being locked up JUST for being gay would ever say something so silly as sexuality is not important, no matter the circumstances. Gayness is still not considered as commonplace as straightness right? So we keep right on marching and talking and shouting and screeching about it until it is as commonplace. All athletes (especially the gay ones) have to go through a lot to get where they get and deserve all the recognition they get. I have a dream..... a dream that one day being gay will not rate a mention even among the loony fringe who govern the country. Moreover, gay people will not need to be better JUST to be equal!

lanimae61

said ages ago

Well... NO! It's a perfectly normal part of describing an athlete. Almost every commentator mentions something personal about the competitor. If they've just had a baby, or recovering from an accident, or their boy/girl/other half is there with them etc. Being out is about being proud and not having to apologise for being gay. How many times does a camera scan the arena for the family and the pleased-as-punch expressions on their faces as their someone dear to them sprints across that line (even if the line is in the water and frankly I for one cheer the day they put cameras under the water and could slow down the diving footage). Only the loony americans would still have broomsticks so far up their collective behinds that they would find mentioning the "G" word on prime time. If the person is out then it's not up to anyone else to strip them of part of their personality. No matter how boring you are, your sexuality is part of your personality right? RIGHT!

equivag

said ages ago

Indeed, it is news like this that makes me embarrassed to be from the U.S. No matter how far we seem to edge forward in the gay-rights arena, it only takes something as stupid as this to quickly whip us back, causing us to lose ground. Americans are a mixed up bunch; there's no question. For a place that, from early days, has had a unique Bill of Rights stitched into the fabric of its governance (something Australia still does not have), the protections offered by such seem only to fly in the face of human rights. American society is drunk on a scary and frustrating cocktail of misguided morality, obsession with sensationalism, NIMBYism, protectionism and arrogance. The whole country needs rehab.

jimjazz

said ages ago

please note I said: "his partner Lachlan". The more we define ourselves from the perspective of our sexuality, the more we create an essentialist view about what it means to be gay or straight. We, unwittingly, contribute to further marginalisation rather than (and I thought this was the ideal) building a world where different sexuality is unimportant and therefore not the subject of derision.

oracle_sood

said ages ago

Matt has said time and time again, he wanted to be acknowledged for his diving, not his sexuality, i think its good that it wasn't mentioned, he wasn't there representing the gay community, he was there representing our country...

David DC

said ages ago

Matthew also chose to come out... something he didn't have to do. And just because we're proud of him doing that, it doesn't diminish the fact that we're also proud for his amazing diving achievement. I still don't get why people have such an issue with owning their sexuality. What's the big deal? I'm gay! I'm proud!

Scott of Coolum

said ages ago

Ones identity is very complex. For example, I can have sex with other men (suggesting homosexuality) but identify as heterosexual. Think of individuals in prison who potentially have no other sexual outlet with another person unless it is with the same sex In terms of group dynamics, the more an individual is encouraged to identify with a larger more encompassing group, in relation to a particular dimension, the less people are on the outer e.g., if my cultural identity is defined by belonging to Queensland then the rest of Australia is on the outer, whereas if my identity was defined by belonging to the human race, an Earthling then...and so on. Personality then intersects this as it underscores what groups we find salient for various dimensions. If it is meaningful for me to identify strongly as homosexual I do so partly by recognizing the differences between me and others, potentially distancing myself from these people in order to maintain my sense of identity. I did a study years ago where I asked men who strongly identified as stereotypically 'masculine' heterosexual males to rate different representations of gay men. What was interesting was that gay men perceived and identified as being stereotypically 'masculine' were significantly more disliked than gay men identified as being more stereotypically 'feminine'. Theory would explain this by saying that heterosexual men whose sense of identity was strongly defined by masculine traits had their identities more threatened by homosexual masculine men as the boundaries between them became more blurred. Thus the more 'narrow' and rigid the salient components of our identity are , the greater the potential for 'others' external to these components to become enemies. Identity is complex and fraught with potential for conflict. Meshing politics to identity is complex by association therefore. Striving to have equal rights for all is the aim I think.

jimjazz

said ages ago

I still don't get why people have such an issue with owning their sexuality. What's the big deal? I'm gay! I'm proud! Owning your sexuality and being defined by it are two vastly different questions. The point being raised here is for people who are same sex attracted to be put forward as exemplars merely by the example they set in their field. Mitchum's power to break down barriers, I believe, is in the implicit understanding around his sexuality by virtue of the fact that he has a same sex partner who is clearly identified. There is no grandstanding, just the pursuit of his passion as a human being. It is this question of humanity which underpins barriers to even further mainstream understanding, because we are still viewed as different. Ergo, relationship recognition is bound up in a belief that the relationship between two people of the same gender is not truly worthy of being regarded in the same vein as a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Mitchum's fine achievement sets a powerful example that regardless of sexuality, we all aspire to realise our dreams. His relentless pursuit of his goals also sends a wonderful message to any young people - again, regardless of sexuality. There is sometimes greater power in less being said, than more.

To post a comment, you need to be a SameSame Member

Log-in now or signup for a new account