The New York Times is facing criticism for releasing an article speculating about Taylor Swift’s sexual orientation.
The editor, Anna Marks, wrote an opinion piece titled “Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do” which contained 5,000 words. In the article, references to the LGBTQ+ community were highlighted and it was speculated that Swift was using hidden messages to hint at her membership in the community.
CNN reports that the article has received criticism from both readers of The Times and individuals who are connected to Swift.
A member of Swift’s team, who requested to remain anonymous, believes that the decision to publish the op-ed was motivated by sexism and ethical violations. They stated that due to Swift’s high level of success, there is a double standard in how her actions are perceived. This individual believes that an article like this would not have been written about male artists like Shawn Mendes, whose sexuality has also been questioned by fans.
Some journalists will stop at nothing to write about Taylor, even if it means being invasive, spreading false information, and acting inappropriately – all while claiming it is simply their “opinion.” The person expressed concern about this behavior.
“This was the least defensible op-ed I can remember ever seeing the NYT run, made all the worst by the fact that it was written by a staffer, who specializes in these speculations,” Chris Willman, the chief music critic at Variety, wrote on Twitter. (In 2022, Marks wrote a guest op-ed essay for the Times speculating on Harry Styles’s sexuality, as well.)
Chely Wright, a homosexual country singer whose challenges with publicly revealing her identity in her profession were highlighted in Marks’s article, reposted Wilman’s tweet. “I believe it was unacceptable for [the New York Times] to publish,” she stated. “It was triggering for me to read – not because the author mentioned my near suicide attempt – but because it is distressing to see a famous person’s sexual orientation being debated publicly.”
Marks posited that from the start of her profession, Swift has been attempting to covertly convey that she identifies as queer. “Individually, a solitary hairpin may hold no significance or be merely coincidental, but when viewed as a whole, they represent the loosening of a ballerina bun after a lengthy performance,” Marks stated. “These dropped hairpins have been present in Ms. Swift’s work long before queer identity became commercially lucrative to the general public. They serve as a signal to queer individuals that she is a part of our community.”
Swift has been supportive of the LGBTQ+ community, referring to her concerts as a welcoming environment and speaking out in defense of them in a 2019 interview with Vogue magazine amidst a surge of anti-gay legislation in various states. In the interview, she expressed concern over the infringement of rights on anyone who does not identify as a heterosexual, white, cisgender male and acknowledged her ability to advocate for a community she does not personally belong to.
However, she has not personally identified as a member of the queer community. In the introduction to the re-recorded version of her 1989 album, which was released in October, Swift explained that at one point in her career, she purposely surrounded herself with female friends to combat constant media scrutiny of her romantic relationships. She stated, “If I only spent time with my female friends, the media couldn’t twist or sexualize that – right? I would later realize that they still could and did.”
Bypass the advertisement for the newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
Recognizing the potential for criticism, Marks proactively attempted to address any potential backlash in her essay. She acknowledged, “I understand that some may see discussing a celebrity’s potential queerness before a formal declaration of identity as too sensationalized and fueled by gossip to be a worthwhile topic of discussion.”
“I have similar concerns as well. However, the narratives that hold power over our shared imagination greatly influence what is socially acceptable for artists and their audiences to express and embody,” she explained. “Whenever an artist attempts to convey queerness and is met with indifference, that representation is lost. Acknowledging the potential for queerness, while understanding the distinction between possibility and certainty, sustains that representation.”
The Times has chosen not to directly address the essay and instead referred to Marks’ own thoughts on criticism as stated in the piece.
Source: theguardian.com
