The following editorial deals with topics that we believe are relevant to technology journalism. While this subject matter is uncommon at Ars, it is not unprecedented.

Do journalists have a duty to report on the sexuality of so-called "glass-closeted" gay people? They do if those people are powerful, says Felix Salmon of Reuters. Media attention on powerful gays and lesbians, even those in the closet, is a social good because it promotes and celebrates diversity, he argues. If it is inspirational to millions to see a gay person at the helm of an illustrious company, Salmon believes we have an ethical duty to not to gloss over the sexuality of such a person, even if that person has never publicly "come out." To fail to do so, Salmon suggests, can be unethical, because it's dishonest.

It is impossible to discuss this debate without discussing its genesis, and that means visiting upon the private life of the man who is at the center of the debate: Tim Cook. The former COO of Apple is now filling Steve Jobs' running shoes as CEO, which makes him massively powerful in tech and, for many, a hero. Cook has chosen not to discuss his private life; very little has even been gossiped about Tim Cook's personal details, and facts are few and far between. Still, there is a consensus that Cook is gay (Salmon cites the "public realm" as his source) but, without Cook being open about it, it's something journalists can only speculate (or gossip) about based on other less solid sources.

For the most part, there has been journalistic silence on Cook's sexuality, save for a few speculative pieces that massively stirred the pot. At the top of the list is Ryan Tate's "Meet Apple’s New Boss, The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley," which appeared at Gawker in January. Predictably, many were outraged by the "outing" based on anonymous sources, with some charging that this was Gawker payback for iPhonegate (anyone who reads the profile can clearly see that it was not vindictive, however; it was a very thorough profile).

Salmon, for his part, celebrates the coverage and laments the dearth of similar work. He argues that the default, namely journalistic silence on the topic of Cook's sexuality, is "unethical" because it amounts to "pretending" that Cook is a straight man. Yet one cannot move so easily from a lack of action to an active motive ipso facto; not writing copy about Cook's sexuality is absolutely not a sign of an active plot to misrepresent the sexuality of Cook. I don't think it can be called a passive, subconscious plot, either. The reality is, for millions of people, Tim Cook's sexuality doesn't occur to them one way or another until others raised it. There are scores of social issues challenging our society today, of which gay rights is only one. It cannot be the media's ethical imperative to cherry pick which identity politics matter and then foist them upon would-be heroes who aren't obliging our viewpoints. And it certainly can't be the case that media reluctance to do so means siding against diversity or social justice.

There is a practical problem here: what more can be written journalistically about someone's sexuality when he or she is not open about it? Salmon readily admits that Cook's sexuality is irrelevant to his job as CEO. Whether or not you agree with what Gawker published, what more is there to possibly write on Cook's sexuality identity that can be called journalism? I am certain that there is no shortage of editors in tech who would agree with Salmon's ultimate aims and hopes in the social justice category, and I count myself among them. Yet I must disagree with the view that covering Cook's sexuality is an ethical imperative free of any other ethical concerns, chief among them Cook's privacy, particularly when that very privacy calls into question the status of this "fact."

Also troubling to me is this: if journalistic silence on Tim Cook's sexual identity is unethical, doesn't that also make Tim Cook's own silence unethical?

Salmon implies that Cook is unfazed with the gossiping about his sexuality because he’s yet to complain about it. This is an argument from silence, and oversimplifies the political position Cook could be in. This also creates a kind of logical short-circuit. Journalistic silence on Tim Cook's personal life is condemned for pretending Cook is straight, but Tim Cook's own silence on the record is to be reckoned approval of the coverage of his sexual identity.

In the end, I can't help but notice that this now makes two Apple CEOs in a row where the press has struggled to define limits covering their private lives. Jobs’ health issues are still the subject of speculation (and a recent tasteless photograph that I will not link), and there, too, many journalists argued that his health was practically public domain because of shareholder interest. With Steve stepping down, the debate moves from a CEO's health to a CEO's sexuality. Voyeurism isn't the right word, but whatever it is, it is still there. We've just moved the justification of our journalistic ingress into private lives from shareholder interest to social justice.

Update: In writing the above, I privileged my own conception of being "publicly out" (e.g., commenting on it publicly, or it being a matter of citable fact) over many possible others, including Felix Salmon’s. His original article speaks of Cook's sexuality as an assumed-if-uncorroborated fact, suggesting that Cook can no longer keep it a secret. If that assumption is considered factual, then writing on it would not be "outing" in the framework I've constructed. I've tried to modify the opening lines to better highlight that difference.