FT.com | John Gapper’s Business Blog

Chirpy gay liberalgate

October 31, 2008

Oh dear. I seem inadvertently to have fallen into a transatlantic cultural and linguistic divide with my line about Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host, being a “chirpy gay liberal” in my column this week.

Those three words were picked out by the Huffington Post (you can’t trust the media) and set off a firestorm of protest among its indignant readers. I have also received quite a lot of fierce emails accusing me of insensitivity, homophobia, stupidity, jealousy, ignorance etc.

The last time I looked, there were 500 comments on HuffPo and some of them were not very nice about me. In view of this, and the comments on my blog item below, perhaps I ought to provide some explanation.

The truth is that I did not think about it much. I wanted a quick description of Ms Maddow, since she is the newest of the television talk show hosts whom I mentioned, and the phrase seemed to sum up her brand for those living outside the US.

For many US readers, there were two problems with this.

One is the meaning of the word “chirpy”. To me, and to most British people, chirpy means lively and fun. I used it because one of Ms Maddow’s appealing qualities is that she is humorous and cheerful, a welcome contrast of the self-aggrandising, bombastic style of various of her male counterparts (I will not mention any names, for fear of yet more emails).

Unfortunately, a lot of US readers seem to have taken chirpy to mean bird-brained and irritating, so they got annoyed. That was not what I meant.

The second problem was my describing her as gay when I did not mention the sexuality of anyone else in the piece (or indeed my own). In fact, Ms Maddow is gay, and openly so, as noted in some recent articles about her, including this one in the New York Times.

I included it because I thought it said something interesting about the US culture wars (yes, the ones that I strayed into) that a gay woman was now one of the most popular talk show hosts on American television.

Incidentally, for a further example of how the description would not be considered offensive in Britain, see this piece, entitled “Gay TV host is liberal queen of US news” in The Observer, the British (liberal) newspaper.

I hope that this explanation helps.

October 31st, 2008 in Media | Permalink

158 Responses to “Chirpy gay liberalgate”

Comments

Chirpy means lively and fun here in the US too! What you said was perfectly fine.

Maybe HuffPo readers just saw “Financial Times” and assumed it was a slight from a cultural conservative. Don’t worry about it for a second, and keep up the great work!
Posted by: itsallgood | October 31st, 2008 at 5:29 am | Report this comment
Maybe John Gapper should preface his contributions with a disclaimer right at the beginning of his articles, apologizing in advance for any content that might be regarded as offensive by gays (chirpy and non-chirpy), non-white readers, adherents of religions of all types, immigrants, veterans, and especially minority groups like stamp collectors, dog owners etc. That way JG can avoid ruffling feathers in advance… maybe?
Posted by: J.J. | October 31st, 2008 at 7:15 am | Report this comment
As a proud left-of-centre and English English speaking homo, I really can’t see what all the fuss is about. Far from being offensive, I would see “chirpy gay liberal” as quite a (not at all deserved) complimentary comment.

I have long since learnt to ignore the never-ending stream of vacuous dross that spews forth from the Huffington Post and other similar - supposedly ‘progressive’, yet still quite staggeringly racist and right-wing by European standards - American sites.
Posted by: Mark Hornsby | October 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am | Report this comment
JG, don’t worry about nonsense like that. It’s just another example of the fake outrage and fake controversy that plagues our shallow, short-sighted news cycle here in the US…
Posted by: Andrew Kinder | October 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am | Report this comment
I know nothing about the use of slang in Britain, but Americans might find a no doubt unintentional double meaning in the phrase that Mr Gapper quotes from a British newspaper referring to Ms. Maddow: “Gay TV host is liberal queen”.
Posted by: algasema | October 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am | Report this comment
I’m willing to accept the explanation about the cultural differences. My pet peeve however, is that Rachel is appropriately referred to as Dr. Maddow rather than Ms. Maddow. She holds a Ph.D. from Oxford, coincidently enough.
Posted by: Rory | October 31st, 2008 at 11:48 am | Report this comment
Hm… bit tricky; chirpy has obviously been misinterpteted (shame, such a nice word), but I do think people objecting to Rachel Maddow’s sexuality being seen as one of the 2 or 3 most significant things about her have a point. It might be rather optimistic to hope that this wouldn’t be the case, but even so…

Yes, it’s true that it is striking that she has such a high profile job and is out - certainly points to societal change, etc. But in *this* context, was that the point being made?

Pointing to other media outlets also labelling Maddow by her sexuality doesn’t strengthen your argument - “other people are doing it” isn’t a great defence. I noticed that Observer piece and was surprised that they’d described her like that until I read the article and saw that in that case, they were focussing on how surprising it is that she’s where she is.

It’s certainly not worth getting furious about, but maybe worth avoiding in the future..?
Posted by: Tasha | October 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm | Report this comment
At very least your supposed expertise is dodgy. You obviously didn’t think before commenting. That is no way to write articles, supposedly giving insights into a foreign country.
Posted by: Scooter | October 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Report this comment
Just a note on Ms Maddow vs Dr Maddow. The FT house style is to refer only to medical doctors as Dr. Everyone else with PhDs - female, male, gay, straight or whatever - is Mr or Ms (or Mrs).
Posted by: John Gapper | October 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pm | Report this comment
As someone whose surname is Gay, a fairly rare name of huguenot origin, I’ve got little time for people who call themselves gay and then over-react when other people use the same word.

In my work as a journalist I occasionally have approach organisations, such as Aids Charities, or even publicly homosexual individuals. I get no response to emails and have to be very careful with phone calls for fear of “offending” people by using my own name.

Go figure, as my US friends would say.
Posted by: Mark Gay | October 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Report this comment
“Chirpy gay liberal” is a delightful and quite accurate description of Rachel Maddow. (And of me, after I have my coffee.) Sad to say, many HuffPo commenters are so hung up on political correctness that they have lost their whimsey. As for calling her “doctor,” it’s a gentle joke about the Rhodes scholar’s PhD.
Posted by: Carol Anne | October 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this comment
You write great columns and I would just ignore these whiners. They are just trying to draw attention to their agenda, it has nothing to do with the content of your column. Keep going!
Posted by: Clifford Press | October 31st, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this comment
I’m just curious as to what Maddow’s sexual orientation has to do with anything. I wouldn’t describe you as a dour heterosexual.
Posted by: susan bruce | October 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this comment
You didn’t need to explain it to me. I have a dry sense of humor and sometimes the only place I can get a decent dosage is from British comedians and television shows, so I would like to think I have picked up on the subtle differences in our two versions of English.

Sometimes people get narrowly focused on their own little world and world view and forget that language transpires outside our own comprehension at times.

Keep of the good work.
Posted by: ThunderMonkey | October 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this comment
I agree with Susan Bruce above. Maddow’s sexual orientation, in a perfect world, ought not have anything to do with anything. I also understand your saying you included her sexual orientation to make a point, but certainly you can understand that, in this country at least, the continuing and unjustifiable struggle gay Americans are made to endure to achieve the same civil rights guaranteed and granted to their fellow citizens might justify a measure of sensitivity. I have two sons. When I am describing them, I use terms like bright, funny, hard-working, avid sports fans, etc. I never mention their sexuality; one is straight, one is gay.
Posted by: anita mabardy | October 31st, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Report this comment
Alas for you, “chirpy” not only means “birdbrained” here in the US, it carries a distinctly condescending tone toward women. Eek. Something of a perfect storm when linked to your other labels.

Sorry ’bout that.
Posted by: Amy | October 31st, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this comment
As for me the description of Rachel was refreshing and yes, accurate. My son is gay, reads Huff as well, discusses it with me and we agreed that it was a very funny phrase. I wondered at who made the comment - made even more sense when I discovered you were British. Americans are so hung up about offending anyone, and those who were offended - lighten up, for God’s sake.
Posted by: Donna Davis | October 31st, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Report this comment
Chirpy is great,as she is quite cherrful & upbeat. However that alongsige “Gay” is dismissive. Do you write that say John McCain or Bill O’Reily is “Hetrosexual”? The answer is likey no, because is has nothing to do with being a great reporter.
Posted by: jon | October 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this comment
p.s. I love British humor above all others. My DVD collection is - sigh, all Brit.
Posted by: Donna Davis | October 31st, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this comment
I agree that you should not get too upset at the fuss. As you may have noticed we are in a thundering frenzy over here about the election next Tuesday. Those of us who are liberal or democratic have had elections stolen and hopes dashed and been pounded daily by on radio and in print by right wingers for near 20 years.

Now, after a long, long dry spell, we may be on the verge of regaining some self respect. So you are prodding at sensitive spots with even casual pokes just now. Forgive us our sensitivity.
Posted by: Jim Haddix | October 31st, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this comment
Hi john,

As an American liberal and longtime HuffPo reader I can say that I was not in the least offended; it was a perfect description for people who do not know who Rachel is (of course, I know what chirpy means and I don’t think gay is a bad word - I wouldn’t have much respect for someone who took much objection to the phrase). I honestly think she’d be happy with the description herself.

And I read your article, ignored people’s objections to the phrase, and thoroughly enjoyed the rest - it was a particularly brilliant piece of writing that I agreed with overall.

If it makes you feel any better, I now know who you are and will likely read more of your writing in the future.
Posted by: Isher | October 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm | Report this comment
Wonderful explanation, thank you very much. Still to be fair, the next time you write about Bill O’Reilly, you should modify it with “frumpy straight guy.”
Posted by: Adam Amel Rogers | October 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm | Report this comment
I read the original article and I found no offense. It actually made me giggle, and I am gay. But I do have to note that the “reason” (actually it’s an excuse) you give about the cultural differences between American’s understanding of terminology and the British understanding is a sham. Your bio above states that you currently reside in New York City (and have for wquite a while resided in the US) and thusly should have been aware of the cultural differences when writing your article. Excuses aside, there really wasn’t much inflammatory about the comment, except possibly that women in the US don’t appreciate being refered to as chirpy-or birds for that matter, and you should have known that having lived here for so long…
Posted by: Robert K Wright | October 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this comment
Just so ya know, I was linked to you from the Huffington Post. And I didn’t take the headline as a slight, but I did wonder about casting a professional in terms of sexuality. It just seems irrelevant. But then I’m liberal.
Posted by: Melissa | October 31st, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Report this comment
And the comment about Ms Maddow being a doctor is not just about her PHD, she also has a radio show in which there is a segment called “Ask The Doctor” which is a live question and answer with listeners.
Posted by: Robert K Wright | October 31st, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this comment
HA! The word “Gay” certainly seems to have been hijacked. It would be horrendous and politically incorrect to a describe a happy moment as say a “gay moment”. But good that you clarified. I agree wholeheartedly with you on her description. Chirpy and gay sounds perfectly good words to describe her show and demeanour.
Posted by: Shrinath Sundaram | October 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm | Report this comment
Folks - we all need to lighten up AND we need to be a bit more careful with how we use descriptive language. In the US, we use “holiday party” because of the diversity of our workplaces, there are just too many people here who don’t celebrate Christmas. Is it so hard so say? I think not. Secondly, Rachel’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to her work, except of course when she makes a disclaimer about it when talking about “culture war” issues. Here’s the deal - none of us likes to be referred to in language that is mildly negative or denigrating; “chirpy” has that connotation in American culture as does “wonky” or “prat” in English culture (as does “pet” or “hen” in Scots culture, but let’s not go there!). Times have changed, cultures have changed, HuffPo and its readers is a perfect example of that change. We all need to change too or risk the brickbats in the culture wars. Chill dudes.
Posted by: Geoff Pierce | October 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Report this comment
For what it’s worth, I just thought I’d point out that two other gay women have had even more popular “talk shows” than Rachel Maddow in the US in the past 10 years or so…Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen Degeneres. So that really isn’t all that new or controversial here. I think that the more interesting factoid is that we finally have a woman (gay or not) hosting a popular POLITICAL talk show in the US, something we haven’t seen since Cokie Roberts co-hosted This Week.
Posted by: Stephanie | October 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment
I am one of the dread huffpo readers and I did respond. I am not gay, but I have always found it annoying and belittling when people are pointed out for being gay. To reduce the total presence of a person to being chirpy, liberal and gay is to withhold adjectives that a journalist *should* have learned in school. The term chirpy in America is a term of great disdain when used to describe a woman - as if she had nothing of import to say, she only chirps inanities. In truth, Dr. Maddow is possessed of many greater and more notable qualities and you do yourself no great service with your weak attempt at apology. Take it on the chin and confess your misstep, rather than pretending you know nothing of which you speak.
Posted by: Carolyn | October 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Report this comment
Dear Sir,

“I included it because I thought it said something interesting about the US culture wars…”

If some of us are sensitive about being “politically correct” here in the US, it is out of a raw and open wound created by the last eight years of Rove/Bush politics. Your throw away adjective simply rubbed salt on it and some of us winced. Our intent is to grow more tolerant not police another’s speech. That, sir, is your own responsibility.
Posted by: Dave Bawden | October 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Report this comment
NEWSFLASH:

Ellen has had one of the “most popular talk show hosts on American television” for YEARS now and Rosie O’Donnell was one of the most popular talk show hosts on American television YEARS AGO.

Why would, or should, you be so surprised that a lesbian would be so popular on television in America now?

I think your comment was innocent but it was still pretty ignorant.
Posted by: Zeke | October 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment
I don’t think your comment was inaccurate, and I see this whole thing as falling into and out of the ambiguities of personal perception. People are just amped up these days because sooner or later everyone says something trivially stupid and it is amplified by instant connectivity and archiving.
Posted by: Fogmaster | October 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this comment
Chirpy definitely sounds lightweight. She’s serious and right, while most bush supporters on the right have been wrong for years now.

Kudos to the FT for supporting Obama, though.

Gay is just disappointing to some of her mail fans.
Posted by: Ron Ray | October 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this comment
I agree with the comments that question the inclusion of sexuality at all. What purpose does it serve? If your intent is only to highlight her alternative lifestyle, then yes, your usage of the term IS offensive. Can she not just be an accomplished broadcaster? Ellen Degeneres has found success on daytime TV for years now, but she’s not the “gay talk-show host” is she? No, she’s not.

Maybe consider using more blatantly positive descriptions next time, if that truly is your intent. After all, if we wanted you Brits telling us what’s proper, we wouldn’t have dumped all that tea off those boats all those years ago.
Posted by: Michael Redder | October 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this comment
Oh, and by the way, Ellen is, and Rosie was, one of the most popular talk show hosts on American NETWORK television.

Strangely you didn’t seem to notice that.
Posted by: Zeke | October 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this comment
I’m a Huffington Post reader, and I’ll just say that I didn’t mind at all. I’m not a consistent reader of yours, so it’s hard for me to be as complimentary as some of the other commenters, but you seem like a pretty good writer, and I wouldn’t mind reading some of your other stuff. ^_^
Posted by: Lauren | October 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm | Report this comment
Ignoring the issues associated with the comments under focus, what concerns me is that a glorified internet blog ‘The Huffington Post’ is being given the status of a legitimate media outlet. It is not a newspaper website but the outlet of ‘Arianna Huffington’ and her associates. You might as well have been overly concerned if you had gotten a few angry letters in ‘Bunty’ too, it had greater credibility.
Posted by: Rodd | October 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this comment
Language can be tricky. If I was in Britain, and you asked me for a “fag”, I’d give you a cigarette, but if you were in New York, I’d give you a friend’s phone number.
“Chirpy Gay Liberal” in America written in an article like this doesn’t exactly sound like a compliment. I don’t think people are being too sensitive, it was just a poor choice of words.
Posted by: JD | October 31st, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Report this comment
I’m chirpy, gay and liberal too - didn’t bother me a bit! No worries, mate.
Posted by: Kate Ward | October 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Report this comment
As an American, life-long liberal, and daily Huffington Post reader, I had no problem with your description. It can certainly be in poor taste to focus on a person’s sexuality but in this case Rachel Maddow is herself very openly chirpy, gay, and liberal–so one would have to suppose she wouldn’t object to the characterization. And, by the way, for those commenters who are pained by the fact that the Huffington Post is now one of the most well-read and influential news outlets on the Internet (and it’s certainly more a news outlet than the Fox propaganda network is, for instance), I say: get over it.
Posted by: Glenn Harris | October 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm | Report this comment
“Chirpy” CAN mean lively and fun, it is one of the definitions… but it usually ranks about 3rd in the list - behind the sounds associated with birds. Referencing Ms. Maddow’s sexuality, without any of the context listed above at all, shows why he got the response he did - and deservedly so. The Huffington Post didn’t take anything about of context, this three word vaguely dismissive expression set up red flags to some (again, deservedly so) and it was correct for Mr. Gapper to respond. “You can’t trust the media” ? why? Because they questioned you? You are, after all, a PART of the media - so I guess we can’t trust you either. Think before you write.
Posted by: Chris Sullivan | October 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this comment
I was really offended by the chirpy thing, since I am a feminist and it is a very derogatory thing to refer to women any bird related description. Then thrilled to see your from the UK.
Glad you weren’t being a prat.
As for the gay thing, make sure you don’t accidentally refer to Barack Obama as African-American as well. It is a big deal that Rachel Maddow is gay and popular. As a gay woman living in the States I am thrilled! And a little surprised considering the climate in some parts of the US.
Sorry you took such a beating on an honest mistake.
Posted by: Tricia | October 31st, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this comment
And one other point, American’s are now defining ‘politically correct language’ for the world, for god’s sake nobody tell the French.

Also I note a comment above:
“Gay is just disappointing to some of her mail fans.”
Ah, perhaps we shouldn’t be commenting on correct language either´…
Posted by: Rodd | October 31st, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this comment
To the US and Huffpo readers (i am one)get over your selves, and stop overreacting.

I want to make a note of the following points:

The writers intentions was not to offend;
The article was written for a mainly British audience using words and terms they understood;
As a UK resident the words chirpy and gay do not offend me;
The nature of the article and the spirit in which it was written:
The fact that he bothered to explain himself;
The fact is that she is gay, and she is pleasant and friendly and smiling and smart, and those are descriptive points worth noting and add depth to the article.
Posted by: Andy | October 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Report this comment
You say: “The truth is that I did not think about it much. ” and that seems completely irresponsible for someone whose JOB it is to speak and write thoughtfully. Are you truly that ignorant and insensitive to believe that your words are not offensive and adolescent? Seems to me that words are your form of commerce and that you simply didn’t think you would be called on your phobic words. Or, that most people would agree with you. Grow up. Maddow is intelligent, informative and entertaining. Sounds perfect to me. And, her show is a refreshing change from the boring and bombastic white male point of view.
Posted by: Meg Scarpetta | October 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pm | Report this comment
Describing someone as gay can be relevant or irrelevant and it depends entirely on context. Most of the time in a professional context it’s irrelevant or should be.

But some jobs (talk show hosts are arguably a good example) are not just about skills but are also about personality. And for some people, gay or straight, sexuality is a big part of their persona eg. they might be flamboyantly gay or they might be a womaniser or a Bridget Jones-style singleton or whatever. For others, gay or straight, it’s simply not a big deal and not the most obvious descriptor.

I have no idea what Rachel Maddow is like as a person or a presenter and where she falls on that scale, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that sexuality is always irrelevant. It’s not an insult to say that someone’s gay.

I find it far more annoying how straight women with children always have to be identified as a mother, when the same doesn’t apply to men.
Posted by: Caitlin | October 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Report this comment
I am a 51 year old white heterosexual (3 children) who happens to enjoy watching Maddo a lot with my wife. My first thought when I read your article was describing her as a light weight, gay (a lot of negative connotations to some people), liberal as a dismissive, diminutive statement aimed at her qualifications. As a small business owner, I have seen too many dim witted, self absorbed,soulless,greedy, unethical, bean counters oh, I mean financial people, run perfectly good companies into the ground. If you are ok with my characterization, I’m ok with yours.
Posted by: Karl Weikel | October 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Report this comment
Well John, you never did get around to what’s on the bill of fare when you go into rut; not that I really give a damn.

Further, why the hell would you assume that we Americans would be familiar with British colloquialisms? I find that kind of ‘Samuel Johnson arrogance’ very tiring; “I’m speaking English and this stupid, shallow American doesn’t even understand what I’m saying.”

I apologize in advance to my Bailey and Phillips relatives who are still suffering in the British Isles.
Posted by: Swamp Fox the Straight | October 31st, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this comment
I agree with your interpretation wholeheartedly and find Rachael to be a breath of fresh air! All is forgiven.
Posted by: pamela cheatham | October 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this comment
Like so many responents today I am “really offended” (as there is nothing else of importance to be offended about at the moment) and must agree with Caitlin, that it is offensive that “straight women with children always have to be identified as a mother” lets just call them “breeders” instead.
Posted by: Cos | October 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this comment
In reducing Rachel professional character to three words, you choose to include her private life as 33% of that description. It says, quite obviously so much more about the narrowness of your bigotries and obsessions than it says about Rachel.
Had you watched the show, you would realize that while her gender lends freshness and a sense of fairness to an overwhelmingly male-dominated sport, she doesn’t display or discuss her sexuality; nor I might add have I ever heard her dive unnecessarilty into the private lives of her topics and guests.

Sadly the same cannot be said for this paper.
Posted by: Benjamin | October 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Report this comment
Well, Ms Ellen Degeneres is also a chirpy lesbian and her talk show has been popular for years. So by that measure, Rachel Maddow is not so surprising.
Posted by: vikki womax | October 31st, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Report this comment
I think your description was apt. The usage as a teaser by some websites to illicit a negative response, was misguided, but in the end you are correct, Rachel Maddow is fun, insightful and definitively homosexual. As she has been the first openly gay person in many fields, and being a openly lesbian member of the vast on air punditocracy is yet another one. Rock on with you british self!
Posted by: Timm | October 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this comment
When you’ve dug a hole for yourself it’s generally best to stop digging, yet most insist on digging themselves in deeper. So it is with M. Gapper who is now trying to tell me that chipper and chirpy are the same. Like egotism and egoism perhaps?

No matter which side of the Atlantic you’re on, no one ascribes a three word “brand” to anyone they’re taking seriously.

As a potential viewer, I find two of Mr. Gapper’s words irrelevant: “chirpy” and “gay.” And Liberal and Conservative have become so degraded as labels that these days conservative heroes such as Barry Goldwater might find the Liberal label hung on them simply for being pro-reproductive rights. Some of Mr. Godlwater’s grandchildren recently endorsed Obama.

Try again Mr. Gapper and use more helpful language this time to describe a highly intelligent, insightful and original journalist who nabbed the best and most substantive nterview yet of presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
Posted by: LHM | October 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Report this comment
If we were to pretend we don’t live in a country where people are ostracized because of religion, sexual orientation, cultural differences or because of the color of their skin, the outrage makes sense. I see the point of the writer and agree with him. Her success story, regardless of her being gay, is a victory…but the war is far from over. Rachel is an impressively intelligent journalist (one I watch religiously and admire) who decided to make no secret of her sexuality. Good for her. She should, in a country such as ours, wear it as a badge of honor and hope that by doing so more gays will follow. At least until it loses its significance of social progress, we should all be gay.
Posted by: AC | October 31st, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this comment
“Chirpy Gay Liberal” seems like exactly the kind of description Rachel would apply to herself with glee. As a huge fan, I enjoyed your description.

As for describing her sexuality, us liberals like it when gay people (or people from any traditionally oppressed group) do well publicly. Rachel is happy to refer to her own sexuality, and has done a couple of times on the show already. Gay youth in America need more role models, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with celebrating the few we have.
Posted by: camipco | October 31st, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment
American “progressives” think themselves open minded but ultimately most are the exact same as neoconservative wingnuts - they just respond to a different set of dog whistles. Huffington Post is a cool site - but their comments are a hotbed of idiotic hysteria. These folks are trolling the internet breathlessly seeking another phrasing that can be construed as offensive over which to hyperventilate.

They are noisy (and annoying) as hell - but it’s better to just ignore them when they go off on another symantics-induced tizzy. Lord knows we do.
Posted by: Kent | October 31st, 2008 at 5:06 pm | Report this comment
John Gapper is a financial hetrosexual editor.
Posted by: Your New Description | October 31st, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this comment
Ya know. I’m a small bizness man. I’m an independent. I already voted….for Obama. I watch Olbermann all the time. I’ve listened to Rachel on Air America for some time now. Her tv show is okay so far. A little light. She needs an intro musical tune and graphics loop like Kieth and Matthews. BUT….

She is chirpy. Cheery. Happy. Crisp. and…..
She is gay. Smiley. Joyful. Funny. Playful. Lesbian. Who cares?

People need to relax a bit and not be so PC.
Posted by: leevntheus | October 31st, 2008 at 5:24 pm | Report this comment
In my experience, people that are knee jerk defensives, that always bend innocuous comments into attacks or perceived insults are VICTIMS of something. And their victim mindset keeps them on the edge of defensiveness about nearly everything and everyone. Its really a shame. Lighten up. Smell the flowers. Enjoy your community.
Posted by: leevntheus | October 31st, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this comment
I guess i still fail to see the need to use “gay” in your comment! Since you do not write straight or non-homo for others, why the need to emphasize the fact that she is gay? Is her sexual orientation important? the fact that she is openly gay does not give you a free pass to single out her sexual orientation — unless you also mention the sexual orientation of others!
Posted by: Michael Torres | October 31st, 2008 at 5:33 pm | Report this comment
Would Mr. Gapper refer to Barbara Walters or Karie Couric as a “chirpy heterosexual (or straight)” journalist? I doubt it. Dr, Maddow’s sexual inclinations may be important to Mr. Gapper, but they are completely irrelevant to me. To that extent, Mr. Gapper’s comment revealed more about him than I care to know.
Posted by: Marilyn Cazon | October 31st, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Report this comment
I read the article via HuPo and did not take offense at all. I knew exactly what you meant by “chirpy” and agree. Rachel has spunk! On the other hand, I’m tired of labels and regardless of how open Rachel is, her sexual orientation didn’t need to be used to characterize her and that’s where you failed. The Brits have a huge problem with this and it’s evident in your humor. Homosexuality is still something to poke fun at across the pond, so your referencing it is not surprising. I’m not espousing political correctness, but why don’t we just let gay people be “people?”
Posted by: BR | October 31st, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Report this comment
I’m glad you got all of this feedback. I hope you’ll take it as a signal to be more aware of how you use your words, and take a few more words to describe exactly what you mean, rather than leaving it vague and filled withe these alternative interpretations. I would appreciate you taking responsibility for this, not just defending and explaining it.
Posted by: Grown Up | October 31st, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this comment
While you’re busy descriping Rachel, why don’t you just throw in that she’s “white” too?
Maybe you want to also tell about her financial status? How about whether she’s single or in a relationship? (Too bad America is so far behind the times we can’t say that she may be “married”.) Or how about what religion she is?
Good Lord, get a brain.
Posted by: kate | October 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Report this comment
I’m a U.S. liberal reader of the Huffington Post, whence I was steered to your article. I found it positive both as regards Ms. Maddow and the Huffington Post. I suspect many who objected did not read it in its entirely, or at all. I also found your comments about the evolution of the “non partisan” U.S. media toward something more like British newspapers provocative and insightful. We did have something more like that over here back in the days of Hearst and Pulitzer. The “objective, balanced” blogs, like the Washington Post, have been far duller than the nakedly partisan ones.
Posted by: Paul A | October 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Report this comment
“chirpy Rhodes scholar” would have summed her up better. Her sexual orientation is irrelevant. Her prodigious intellect, which she puts to good use every night, isn’t.
Posted by: Roy Jemison | October 31st, 2008 at 6:09 pm | Report this comment
Oh, I get it. This is the same sort of apology we Americans engage when using the wrong vernacular on your side of the pond. Nicely played.
Posted by: joe | October 31st, 2008 at 6:09 pm | Report this comment
I love the Rachel Maddow show, and watch her show daily with much gusto!
I like her chirpy style, its refreshing and friendly and not as austere as many of her counterparts, .I get the feeling that many people like being on her show too!
I guess what sounded offensive is not chirpy, but the fact that you had to mention she was Gay, as if that was so important! Here in the USA, there are still many who regard being GAY as a sinful disease, and may not watch her show for fear of spreading gayness….sad, but true.
Posted by: ipanemagirl | October 31st, 2008 at 6:15 pm | Report this comment
You can’t please everyone all of the time, no matter what you say, can you? Someone once admonished me, “why not ask people how THEY want to be referred to?” (this was in a discussion of the terms “African-American” versus “black”). I suppose one could go that route, but then the response will almost certainly be different for each individual out there; we will all need buttons to wear stating our top three self-endorsed adjectives. That way nobody steps on anybody’s dress, right? (SIGH) It might be an interesting exercise for third graders, anyhow (WINK). I find it hard to imagine how referring to Ms. Maddow as “gay” would be considered offensive (unless you called her, “the gay” which it’s quite clear you did not!); since she’s Out and she’s Proud, after all. Maddow is equally unabashed about her liberal viewpoints, and “chirpy” (perhaps the only word anyone could actually take issue with) is an apt description: Rachel Maddow certainly cheers me up whenever I watch her show, no matter how dire the news seems to be, and I would agree that her upbeat chutzpah could be called “chirpy” without it seeming derogatory. My mom comes from New Zealand, and perhaps I also have a more tolerant impression of that particular adjective. I’d bet money that Maddow has been referred to in far more damaging terms from people who have actually meant to be derisive. “Chirpy” merely means “spirited” in my book. The dictionary description I looked up said, “cheerful and lively.”

I have a feeling there are bird-brains out there, however, who are under-educated and see such words and flip-out due to their own ignorance. It seems a shame on the one hand to have to address this in a column when you’d likely rather be addressing other topics, and on the other hand, there’s a serious degeneration of language in effect. It’s been happening ever since I can remember, and is perhaps a function of language itself. This sort of dumbing-down of the English language (particularly by Americans) demonstrates to me a sort of laziness and apathy about the values of diplomacy. I hope under a new and improved President who doesn’t mumble gibberish like George W. Bush, folks will be inspired to think more worldly when it comes to their language skills; behave more diplomatically and less reactionary; remove blinders and be investigative. Let’s widen our vocabularies (there’s worse advice out there than, “learn a new word every day”). Context is so important, so is intention. Daunting tasks for the lazy or under-educated, but easy to overcome with just a bit of willingness to think “outside the box” as it’s often put. Everyone’s on edge, it seems, these days, and peoples’ fuses seem remarkably short — shorter than ever. I believe Barack Obama (I pray he’s elected) will set the bar high for diplomacy and Americans everywhere will be challenged to measure up to this president’s high opinion of us. Frankly, I can’t wait for Bush-speak and Sarah Palin’s folksy half-sentences to vanish from the national scene. What does disturb me is that there are evidently so many bird-brains in this country who continually reward greed and incompetence over true character and evident competence; no doubt these people then feel justified to continue their own dumbed-down patterns without any sense of shame or accountability.

I just surfed in here by accident via HuffPo, of all places (and I want you to know not everyone who reads HuffPo is a reactionary nut-case — some of us look at context and try to ascertain intent before we get all “huffy”(WINK)).

Good article, even if it was not on Finance.
Posted by: MrBurlesk | October 31st, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this comment
“a gay woman was now one of the most popular talk show hosts on American television.”

Obviously, you’ve never heard of Ellen Degeneres.
Posted by: Jeremiah | October 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this comment
Carry on!

Best regards,
- a droll, straight, progressive (not that there’s anything wrong with that)
Posted by: Curtis E. Mayle | October 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this comment
I am a HUGE Maddow fan and I never thought this was a slur. In fact, I would think that is exactly how she would desrcibe herself.
Posted by: Scy | October 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Report this comment
Had you stuck to your explanation, all would be well, I suspect. But your defensiveness (You can’t trust the media? Really? Really? But, but, you are the media)makes me wonder, particularly when you seem to want us to knee-jerk-edly blame ‘the media’, something the far right ‘media’ has been doggedly pushing for 8 years. Over on this side of the pond, we’re damn tired of it.
Posted by: Jen | October 31st, 2008 at 6:28 pm | Report this comment
Jen, defensiveness no, irony yes.
Posted by: Curtis E. Mayle | October 31st, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Report this comment
Can’t anyone see the tongue-in-cheek and self-deprecating use of the “you can’t trust the media” by JG. Where is everyone’s sense of humour. Get a life. By the way, JG, next time think twice before wandering into any more social labels. And, when you are in a hole, please stop digging…
Posted by: DCH | October 31st, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Report this comment
A couple of clarifying points:

1. “You can’t trust the media” was meant as a joke.
2. I should have written “political talk show hosts” rather than “talk show hosts”. I thought that the context conveyed it, but obviously not.
Posted by: John Gapper | October 31st, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Report this comment
LOL!!! Now that he’s explained, I wouldn’t mind if people call me “chirpy.” I kinda like it. And I am a gay progressive (don’t like “liberal”), so from now on, I’m going to refer to myself as a “chirpy gay progressive.”

You learn something new everyday.
Posted by: David T | October 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this comment
It did to me, John. But, over here there are many “knee-jerk-edly” people who miss more than nuances.
Posted by: Curtis E. Mayle | October 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this comment
I have read the Financial Times on line and occasionally have seen your columnists on Washington Week (maybe) and the shouting match on McLaughlin. Your commentators are boring and might make it in your country but here in the “Real America” of white college educated people your use of “chirpy” is downright 40’s and use of the word “gay” is insulting no matter what you intended it to mean. Stick to your own country’s politics. I’ll bet you just adored the Iron Lady with the pocketbook.
Posted by: myrna abdel-gawad | October 31st, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Report this comment
Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how you try and spin it, John. As a long-time reader of the FT here in the states I think you should be fired. At any rate I’m cancelling my subscription.
Posted by: Andrew | October 31st, 2008 at 7:04 pm | Report this comment
I posted on Huff Po–not because I was offended. Instead, I thought the description “chirpy” was quaint. It conjured up visions of Rachel as a bird…what kind of bird?…blue bird, budgie etc. Describing Rachel as gay is a double-edged sword. On the one hand she is openly gay and one of the few women with her own hard news show and and on the other hand her being gay has no real bearing on her job. It did seem dismissive to sum her up in so few words.
Posted by: Estelle Gabel | October 31st, 2008 at 7:08 pm | Report this comment
Love Rachel. I honestly don’t hear “chirpy” in a negative connotation, but I can honestly imagine how some people can. I accept the author at face value that he didn’t mean it that way. As refering to her as “gay”, its like referring to the color of her hair - so what.

I’m an American who doesn’t get why the author is in hot water. So there isn’t THAT much of a divide.

Really, “he should be fired” - come on, there are WAY more important things to devote such emotional tirades to - statement from someone who has had my share of emotional tirades ; )
Posted by: Tad | October 31st, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Report this comment
Speaking as a Canadian, I find nothing offensive in the comment.

The writer just got hit with a reactive blog swarm. It’s unpleasant and as Rachel Maddow would say, “post-rational.”

“Chirpy” (it’s not even in my spell checker) may have been confused with “perky” which is often used as an insult.

For example, Sarah Palin is ultra-perky.
Posted by: Marilyn Murray | October 31st, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Report this comment
The point is that you used her sexual preference to simply explain away her reasoning and beliefs. It’s a cheap shot for a snicker among those who probably won’t like her solely based on her being gay. Was it as bad as a using a derogatory name? No, but the point is the same, isn’t it? You don’t get a pass because you kicked her in the shin rather than stab her in the jugular. Your explaining away your cheap shot makes you look even more petty.
Posted by: Paul Hogue | October 31st, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this comment
Two wrongs does not make it right! Your insensitivity and irrelevant reference to “GAY” is still insensitive and irrelevant!!!
Posted by: Maria | October 31st, 2008 at 7:23 pm | Report this comment
Nothing wrong with “chirpy”, “gay” or “liberal”, but you forgot “quick”, “incisive”, “intelligent”, “good-humored”, “well-educated” and a host of other adjectives that would give your readers a more accurate description of Ms. Maddow.
Posted by: ivy | October 31st, 2008 at 7:24 pm | Report this comment
Be an adult, and at least own up to your prejudice rather than seek sympathy hugs for your self-inflicted wounds.
Posted by: Paul Hogue | October 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm | Report this comment
I think chirpy may have lost allot in the english translation. We here in the US just normally assume that anything said by a media outlet about someone we like, automatically must be something bad. That is a bad commentary on the state of our media which is mostly awful.
Posted by: Carl Feher | October 31st, 2008 at 7:26 pm | Report this comment
Anybody who read your article (as I did) would have noticed from the context that this was an entirely positive characterization.
Posted by: Ralf | October 31st, 2008 at 7:31 pm | Report this comment
i am the biggest maddow fan (i absolutely love her), and believe me, what you wrote was not offensive. i think you’re just being picked on. i’m sure ms. maddow was not offended. i think ‘chirpy gay liberal’ is on the verge of being a compliment.
Posted by: Paul Armstrong | October 31st, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Report this comment
I am a fan of yours as well as a regular watcher of Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC. I think she is a refreshing anchor and did not find what you said about her offensive.
Posted by: feroz | October 31st, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Report this comment
Note to commenters: you can post any criticism of me you like here (within reason) but I will delete ad hominem remarks about Europeans by Americans and vice versa. As a Brit who lives and works in New York, I think we should all just get along.
Posted by: John Gapper | October 31st, 2008 at 7:38 pm | Report this comment
Relax…..

as a gay man, I was not the least bit offended by your capsule description. In fact, I think Rachel would agree with it.

And I understood perfectly what you meant by ‘chirpy’ - even here in the U.S.A.

Some people are WAY WAY too quick to see offense where none is intended.
Posted by: Peter | October 31st, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Report this comment
John I think the real reason you ran into this swarm of bees is that Rachel Maddow is probably one of five top Obama defenders, dating back to when Hillary Clinton and Obama were going at it. She became, along with Keith Olbermann, one of the Obamabot’s darlings. Understandably they are a little touchy right now so please forgive them. Actually they have been a little touchy for two years now. I say this as a Gay man from Texas who just today early voted for Obama.
Posted by: Ed in Texas | October 31st, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this comment
I haven’t read through the comments on this, so I’m not sure if this has been pointed out already, but I think the offense some people may have taken lies in your use of the term ‘gay’ to describe Rachel. The fact may be that she is openly homosexual, however, I have never heard her speak about her sexuality or personal life on her show, and I don’t think it is at all relevant to who she is as a television news pundit. c
Posted by: Mike C | October 31st, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Report this comment
“a gay woman was now one of the most popular talk show hosts on American television.”

Guess you never heard of Ellen, eh?
Posted by: Baldrick | October 31st, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Report this comment
She is also a brilliant Rhodes scholar. Might be nice to mention THAT.

Would you like to be referred to as “straight” (if you are) every time sometimes mentions your WORK?

What the heck does sexual orientation have to do with one’s quality of work???
Posted by: Teresa Wagner | October 31st, 2008 at 8:12 pm | Report this comment
I think the Atlantic divide softens the quote, but not because of a linguistic difference, as much as a socio-political one. What many of these comments overlook is the nasty political climate in which the Huffington Post quite understandably responded to these three words, chirpy, gay and liberal. Because of course, the current aggressive Republican campaign has no trait more signature than the mendacious and incidious use of the innocuous phrase. One does not have to believe in neuro-linguistic programming to understand that certain words can easily push a button, especially in an electorate which has no training in formal debate. To have a sense of what I’m driving at, do a web search with the word Obama, plus any number of the following: Hussein, Moslem, Arab, leftist, non-Christian, liberal, socialist, homosexual agenda, Indonesia, Kenya. The toxic power of insinuation runs highest, of course, when a population is accustomed more to indoctrination than to the acute and independent consideration of ideas. But otherwise innocuous words also take on exceptional power, when an otherwise balanced ear is set upon by experts in the subtle arts of character assassination, many of whom are barking, jowly conservatives.
Posted by: Edward Hutchcroft | October 31st, 2008 at 8:22 pm | Report this comment
Seems like an honest, rational explanation. “Chirpy” can mean the same thing in the U.S., it’s not just a British thing. I think a lot of social liberals (myself included at times) are so used to conservatives using “gay” as a bad word that we’re a little touchy.

Also, the explanation is much appreciated when I’m so accustomed to people ducking things like this!
Posted by: Jason Gregory | October 31st, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Report this comment
I took no offense to the “chirpy gay” description, but I’m baffled at your apparent surprise that a gay female would be a popular talk show host in the United States. Surely you’re heard of Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen Degeneres?

With her eponymous show, Maddow breaks new ground in form and content … but not in the gender and sexuality of the host.
Posted by: ZekeCDN | October 31st, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Report this comment
To categorize a minority group with stereotypical descriptors as you did Ms. Maddow is heterosexist. It makes no difference the number of ways you try to explain or excuse it. Apologize already.
Posted by: Gretchen Hardee | October 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Report this comment
Apology/clarification accepted. I was upset with you because “chirpy” really seemed to communicate a lack of substance or heft in Ms. Maddow, whereas I find her most notable quality to be her intelligence. Perhaps there was a cultural, linguistic divided there, but the connotation of “chirpy” to me is weak and frivolous. All is well now.
Posted by: Sarah | October 31st, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Report this comment
“The truth is that I did not think about it much.” I think that is fairly obvious sir.As a writer, I would expect you to be more articulate than that. Is that the best you could come up with describe a capable host of a political programme? Come on, your flimsy explanation and writing is not good enough sir.
Posted by: Raquel Rogers | October 31st, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Report this comment
Speaking as an American and a gay liberal, I only wish I could be chirpy after eight years of living on the brink of a military theocracy. You must pardon us if we’re all a bit on edge over here - it tends to make one jumpy when governments threaten to amend their constitutions to deprive one of basic civil rights. While “perky” might have better served your purpose, personally I think you should have just cut to the heart of the matter… “One seriously smart, way hot dyke.” Long may she chirp.
Posted by: Bryan Harrison | October 31st, 2008 at 9:24 pm | Report this comment
Bottom line, it was a poor cluster of words.

“Chirpy” - yeah, maybe in some other country this is a compliment. Here, many people would view that word with mixed implications. Some might think it a posiotive statement, many others would associate it with a bird that merely makes sounds and view it as meaning someone who just yaks without substance.

“Gay” - it’s an irrelevant descriptor. Nobody mentions that someone else is “straight” as part of a three word desriptor.

“Liberal” - probably the only word here that is accurate is insightful as it does denote her political leanings.

However, when lumped together - and as you yourself stated that it was to create a “quick description” of Ms. Maddow (as if this three words together create an insightful overview of the woman) - it makes assumptions.

It feels as if you are saying, of theres this gay liberal on this show that makes speaks with words of no consequence (like the sounds that birds make).

Nobody is being hyper-sensitive. If you are GLBT in this country, you have grown up with a constant stream of dismissive statements about yourself. Words that are lumped together to devalue and dismiss. You have a “gay agenda” (clue: ALL people have agendas because they have personal priorities). You are a “gay activist” (because you actualy care about the way you are treated!). Young people who grew up with shows like “South Park” use the term gay as both an insult (”that’s so gay”) AND a term to state sexuality. “Gay liberal” (not all gay people are liberals).

Her being gay is important enough to mention but her level of education is not?

I just think it would be wise to think a little before creating three word literary sound-bytes to sum up an entire person.
Posted by: Chris Sullivan | October 31st, 2008 at 9:31 pm | Report this comment
Bryan “Military Theocracy” - I like that! It does accurately sum of the way I feel out country has been run these past 8 years!
Posted by: Chris Sullivan | October 31st, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Report this comment
Have to agree with the “gay” part. Useless descriptive, whether she is out or not. We don’t talk about Edward R. Murrow as that “straight” news journalist of yesteryear. We don’t talk about “straight” Queen Elizabeth. So it is really a poor choice on your part to use someone’s sexuality as a basis for differentiating them as a celebrity news person. Your excuse is lame.

As far as chirpy. That’s cool.
Posted by: Helen Hill | October 31st, 2008 at 9:41 pm | Report this comment
My own problem is with the term “liberalgate.”

In the US that term would seem to imply that she is a corrupt liberal. And who gives a rats ars if she’s gay?

Anyway, have a nice day!
Posted by: Dave Smith | October 31st, 2008 at 9:43 pm | Report this comment
Oh… never mind…
Posted by: Dave Smith | October 31st, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Report this comment
I wasn’t offended either, and I am gay. “Chirpy” is a good description of Rachel’s style, which is humorous yet deadly serious at the same time. On last night’s show she openly criticized John McCain for calling gay people “the gay” and it isn’t exactly a secret that she is gay (at least it hasn’t been after the NYT profile back in August). I wonder, however, what the relevance is of the fact that she is gay. I’m not sure it is shorthand for anything. There are, after all, gay Republicans (e.g. Log Cabin Republicans).
Posted by: Lindsey Straus | October 31st, 2008 at 10:01 pm | Report this comment
Your comment “chirpy” did not bother me; Rachel is bright and chipper, in addition to being informative, and quick on the uptake. Even if it refers to birds, that, in my book, is a high compliment. As to your reference to her sexual orientation, I wonder why you thought it necessary to put that in.

Rachel Maddow is very smart, very observant, and disarmingly friendly even with potential adversaries. She would make an excellent choice for White House Press Secretary in the Obama administration.
Posted by: David Sattinger | October 31st, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Report this comment
Perhaps you were less mindful of your audience than you intended. Britain and America, two countries separated by a common language? Indeed! But you are a writer and if your audience was entirely British, you could easily get by with “chirpy.” An example I have long enjoyed is the British meaning of “clever.” You chaps define it as bright, intelligent, resourceful; Americans tend to find it implies cunning and underhandedness.

As to using “gay,” you simply reminded me that, as much as I adore Rachel, she will never be my heart of hearts; alas, I am gay, too! But I sense, like myself, she has never used her sexuality to define who she is. Yes, she is clever, in your sense of the word. So I shall let her be chirpy, too. She doesn’t need my praise; all one needs to do is look at her polling numbers and the amount of ink she receives. She could replace Barbara Walters on “The View” without blinking and I have seen some who suggest she be appointed Pres. Obama’s press secretary. I think her future knows no bounds. So gratifying to see an intelligent American pundit amongst the ignoramuses like Bill O’Reilly.
Posted by: Russell H Manning | October 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm | Report this comment
As a straight American male, those adjectives popped out at me as well when i read the original piece. I didn’t know that there had been any “outcry” or whatever about it however. It just seemed out of place and irrelevant in a story about TV ratings that was otherwise mostly filled with numbers and statistics.

While Maddow is very open about her sexuality, I don’t recall her EVER talking about it on her TV program. I’m sure she would not find the word “gay” to be an insulting term in any way when used to describe her, but in the context of the original piece it did ring as a sly attempt at a condescending dig to those who would be predisposed to read it that way. Since much of the British attitude towards Americans seems to consist of very tired, dry, smug, and condescending put downs, it is no surprise that many people would read it that way. I certainly did.

What if it read, “a chirpy liberal with very large feet”? I have no idea how large Maddow’s feet may or may not be, but I would stop and ponder WHY the author felt compelled to mention her shoe size in a story about ratings.
Posted by: Scooby Dubious | October 31st, 2008 at 11:26 pm | Report this comment
Thanks for clarifying.. we forgive you! I can’t live without my evending dose of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann!
Posted by: Amy Masarwe | October 31st, 2008 at 11:46 pm | Report this comment
After reading most or all of the comments above, I also have to wonder, along with at least one or two other people who have posted on this blog, what Rachel Maddow’s sexual orientation has to do with anything.

What is pertinent here is that she is a brilliant and courageous person who tells the truth and doesn’t pull any punches. Of course her program has a liberal, pro-Obama slant. It’s about time, after eight years of non-stop Bush/Cheney lies and Fox news lies mixed with hate, supplemented by the McPalin campaign, which is more of the same.

If it were not for people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann (whom no one will ever call “chirpy” I can guarantee) Fox News would still be dominating this election, and we might even be seeing very different poll numbers.
Posted by: algasema | October 31st, 2008 at 11:56 pm | Report this comment
An American writer would not have said that unless he was inviting a fight. The Right in the U.S. is so prone to stepping over the line that we now fight at the drop of a hat.
Posted by: Tom Curtis | November 1st, 2008 at 12:51 am | Report this comment
Calling Maddow a chirpy gay liberal wouldn’t be offensive to me here in Australia - the fact that she’s gay wasn’t relevant to what you were talking about, but on the other hand it was just an interesting factoid that you threw in. But I can see how it might have worried the Americans where the homophobes are so vicious and they have to be constantly vigilant about this stuff. Anyway, you can call me a chirpy gay liberal whenever you like.
Posted by: Chirpy gay liberal FT reader | November 1st, 2008 at 12:58 am | Report this comment
I notice that your biographical sketch does not include your sexual orientation. Straight or gay? Please include it. Also publish a list of all your FT colleagues, with their sexual orientation. And always include it whenever you write about persons in the news.
Posted by: Walter Friedenberg | November 1st, 2008 at 1:08 am | Report this comment
What you said was fine. Everyone is a little on edge about this election, specifically the attacks on Obama. We all need to take a deep breath, and exhale after the election.
Posted by: Suzanne | November 1st, 2008 at 1:54 am | Report this comment
explanation accepted–next time you might want to write for all audiences in a more neutral way—-
Posted by: Dr pappas | November 1st, 2008 at 2:06 am | Report this comment
I am curious why her being gay should not be worthy of comment. Surely it is at least part of the reason she was hired for the show and, frankly, part of her appeal. Should her chirpiness or liberal orientation also be overlooked? I suppose those qualities exist in the opinion of Mr. Gapper, while her gay-ness (if that is a word) is a fact. Should we not note hair color, or eye color, as these are also facts about people that we often write about. Good for her for being gay, andit is an imprtant part of her persona and her “brand”. It seems like fair game to me.
Posted by: Derrick | November 1st, 2008 at 2:14 am | Report this comment
“Derrick” said:

Being gay “is at least part of the reason she was hired for the show”…

What? What planet do you live on? If that were the case wouldn’t she mention the fact? Wouldn’t MSNBC mention it somehow in their promos?
She isn’t “obviously” gay, like Graham Norton or something. Commenters here have mentioned that they weren’t even aware of the fact.

Has she had her radio show for many years because of her “gay voice”?

BTW…would the word “chirpy” be used to describe a man? perhaps an annoyingly shrill GAY man, right?
Posted by: Scooby Dubious | November 1st, 2008 at 2:27 am | Report this comment
I think your error was inadvertent, but I do think it was an error in two ways, which you identify well:

1) In the States (or at least for many of us), “chirpy” suggests “talking too much”;

2) That gayness made a difference in your article.

But it seems that you now see the problem.
Posted by: Michael | November 1st, 2008 at 2:35 am | Report this comment
Actually, Mr. Gapper’s real crime in this contretemps was his failure as a writer to leverage a prime opportunity to use alliteration:

http://thebfdblog.com/2008/10/30/rachel-maddow-mis-characterized/

In that item I also take Mr. Gapper to task for his use of somewhat non-precise language.

Even so, the bottom line is that I have to acknowledge that Mr. Gapper does acurately and succinctly convey to his readers the true essence of Ms Maddow, who I admire greatly.
Posted by: Big Fella | November 1st, 2008 at 3:02 am | Report this comment
I like Maddow, am pretty liberal myself, and find the description amusing and accurate (although there’s deep thought underneath the chirpiness).

Mr. Gapper, you seem to be gaining understanding of US culture, so let me further fill you in—people like getting worked up about stuff that’s sometimes, well, a little silly.
Posted by: JoshA | November 1st, 2008 at 3:34 am | Report this comment
I think it’s great that you took the time to respond to the concerns of some readers of HuffPo. You didn’t have to…and people could have gotten past it, but your thought process makes sense. While I watch Maddow, and I am gay, and a Democrat I am beginning to find her liberal slant, and the glee with which she delivers the “news” a bit disturbing. I watch MSNBC in part because I feel like they speak my language. But if I watch it for that reason, then certainly conservative, Republican straight people are watching FOX for the same reason. If we only watch “news” that reports with a spin in either direction, what hope do we have of addressing what feels like a substantial national divide. And does anyone care?
Posted by: Leniere Miley | November 1st, 2008 at 3:52 am | Report this comment
Who cares if she’s gay. She’s just so darn smart and human, Makes me want to have a beer at my local hangout.
Posted by: stan grimes | November 1st, 2008 at 4:14 am | Report this comment
What little I’ve seen of Ms. Maddow I’d definitely say is ‘chirpy’. Not a fan. If I remember right she comes on right after even more offensive Keith Olbermann. A true fit for MSNBC, the far left liberal network that has given up any pretense of journalistic integrity.
Dismal ratings, I think MSNBC comes in at or near the bottom of network ratings. Maddow and Olbermann are representative of MSNBC fare.
Posted by: johno | November 1st, 2008 at 4:43 am | Report this comment
I wonder if you ever report on any “chirpy, straight woman high in TV ratings…Who are you kidding….get real….Outing her won’t get her kicked off…they Knew ahead of time….She outed herself….good try though!
Posted by: Sherie E | November 1st, 2008 at 4:54 am | Report this comment
Could not have written it better than Scooby Dubious’ latest comment.

Rachel Maddow’s show is on too late for me generally, but she is a delight when I have seen her.

Also I agree in regard to Keith Olbermann. He does go overboard, but his commentary is at least based on facts as opposed to the perpetual lies about anything and everything that I have ever seen on Fox News - which I occasionally linger on for a few minutes when flicking through TV channels. True also of almost other other commentary or news shows.

If a conscientious Briton of any political opinion were to see Glenn Beck’s (a current and former AM-radio, right-wing, talk-show host) show, that person would want him thrown off the air immediately. Pure stupidity, ignorance and slander all the time.

One could go on and on about most of the news or commentary oriented programs, not to mention “entertainment news” which actually has had the pretense of “interviewing” and “reporting on” political figures.

Regarding the post itself, other comments here cover the gamut of opinion. Needless to say “chirpy” in American English connotes “happy talk”, the bane of television news in the USA, and superficiality.

The “gay” comment does not offend me as it does others who have written here. It is relevant to the extent that virtually female newscasters or commente

ft.com/gapperblog

Chirpy gay liberalgate

October 31, 2008

158 Responses to “Chirpy gay liberalgate”

Comments