NYT:
The one thing he hasn’t done yet — and the lacuna grows more obvious and awkward with each show — is talk about his love life. It’s hard to see how he can continue to leave that out selectively and preserve one particular zone of privacy while building a confessional talk show wrapped around his good looks, high spirits and glamorous adventures.
Gossip magazines like Us and People, and Web sites like TMZ.com follow his exploits, but he has so far managed to avoid mainstream prying. As he put it in a 2007 interview, “The whole thing about being a reporter is that you’re supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that.”
The whole thing about being a talk show host is that you stop observing and make a spectacle of yourself, and that usually entails losing control over what you disclose and what you hold back. “Anderson” raises the question of whether Anderson is quite ready for that, and its success may hinge on the answer.
I've defended Anderson in the past. He's done good work for the community on his show, and never commits hypocrisy. Sure, it'd be nice for him to come out, but I understood his desire not to, and respected it. I think what the Times is getting at is the fact that it was once a secret, but not any longer. At this point, it's almost interfering with his show(s): knowing the truth, but knowing that it must not be spoken.
I'm still not terribly worked up over this subject, but if the Times is writing about it publicly, then perhaps it's time to just get it out of the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment