George Michael: Outed

I don't know, but I came to this Channel 4 documentary based on the outing of pop star George Michael in 1998, after watching the same channel's other recent programme on the life and times of another celebrity rarely out of the headlines in the 80's and 90's, TV presenter Paula Yates and was struck at the similarities between the two. Besides using the pop-culture similarities in both subjects, both shows used the same bold purple font for their main title, both were separated into two roughly 45 minute episodes and both told their story in a fast-paced almost tabloid style.

I've tried to see if the same production company made both docs but if they did, in trying to encapsulate the whole life of one person as opposed to one controversial incident in the other's life and career, it's probably not surprising that I found the two-parter on Miss Yates much more informative and coherent.

I can well remember the publicity that George Michael's arrest sparked although it crossed my mind that I'm still awaiting the 90 minute retelling of actor Hugh Grant's encounter with a prostitute at around the same time. Big claims are made on behalf of the gay community down to the singer's subsequent stand against the tabloid press and TV news coverage of the incident which saw him finally admit his homosexuality, speaking out candidly on TV chat shows in both Britain and America and cheekily rreleasing a new single called "Outside" promoted by an expensive promotional video in which he's dressed up as a policeman and gyrating with his fellow-dsncers in front of a set of urinals.

The programme sought to add context by highlighting the impact of the revelation on the wider gay community against the backdrop of the A I D. S. epidemic and the often cruel response to it by the paranoid tabloud press.

Personally, I think the praise and support of Michael's stand was a little over-exaggerated and that this 90 minute retelling of events was similarly overdone and in truth a bit padded out. Just like in the Yates' documentary however there's no doubt that the paparazzi and gutter-press come out of this smelling of manure as they weakly seek to justify their highly questionable tactics in pursuit of a lurid headline, none more so than when one of their number, unsurprisingly from the now extinct "News Of The World" callously extorts the admission from the bereaved mother of Michael's recently deceased partner's bereaved mother in Rio that her son died of A. I. D. S.

I remember as a boy at one time aspiring to be a journalist but if this is what it takes to make it on Fleet Street, I'm glad I chose a different career. As regards George Michael personally, I've always considered him one of the more approachable and down-to-earth stars, not like some of the other lost-in-showbiz types who seem to proliferate, but while he certainly comes across with both his personal and musical reputations intact, I'm not sure this rather trashy, bloated documentary of one incident in his life merited the same running time it took to tell Paula Yates' whole life story.

One of the best things to have happened in my lifetime is the gradual destigmatisation of being gay. The tabloid press used to feed off stories about people's sex lives, often ruining them in the progress. Pop star George Michael was one such victim; although hitherto closeted, he came out fighting, and helped defang the mob. The story of Michael's exposure (in both senses of the word!) is not actually very interesting; the backstory, that of a young man who felt forced to hide one part of his identity (while being celebrated as a heterosexual sex-symbol) is more interesting. The shamelessness of the journalists who appear in this sort of programme always amazes me, and not in a good way. The series ends by stressing that even today, there is still a lot of bigotry in the world; nonetheless, I think the larger story remains one of progress.

As a recently out gay man, (at the age of 59), this programme underlines the reason I didn't come out earlier. The gutter press in the UK are just shameless and try to validate their behaviour as reporting news, but are reprehensible. The language used in the tabloid press is nothing but inflammatory and George was hounded by them relentlessly. We know that they have since been reigned in after the phone tapping scandals, and rightly so. But the fact they were allowed to do and print such hateful stories is unacceptable. And watching them on film, talking in such an offhanded way about their stories and tactics is sickening.

I would recommend this to anyone that has any doubt that there is still homophobia in the modern press.

I remember well the incident this documentary covers and, as a young (at the time!) out gay man, my revulsion at how the tabloid press was covering George Michael's (and my own!) sexuality. I'm fairly sure this was the final straw that enabled me to persuade my mum to give up buying the hateful Daily Mail. I was elated, until I found she'd switched to The Sun instead. :-(

The 'lewd act' itself? Well, yeah, it probably is a little sordid, but GM was only doing the same thing as thousands of other gay men at the time. Several of the newspaper clippings shown presented it as being a cheap thrill for the perverted. Doing it 'for the thrill' may have been the motivation in a small minority of the cases, but not many. For most, the risk of discovery was just another thing to be scared about. What the journalists who wrote about it at the time, and spoke of it in this documentary, fail to admit is that they themselves were a primary cause. It's probably hard for those being born around the time of the incident, or after it, to imagine not having the internet or apps like Grindr through which to meet like-minded men. The fear of becoming a few column inches in the local rag, or national press if you had any level of public recognition, was enough to make the idea of openly visiting a gay bar unthinkable.

Cruising was a fairly dumb thing for GM to do, given his global recognition and public image, and if the police hadn't arrested him on that occassion no doubt eventually one of his encounters would recognise him and go public with the story (for a few bucks and their fifteen minutes of fame). I can't help wondering if at some level, subconsciously probably, that's actually what he wanted to happen. Whilst the immediate aftermath can't have been anything but hurtful to all but the extremely thick-skinned, both his confidantes at the time and he himself spoke about how trapped he felt by his public image. Once the initial furore had become old news, it must have been a relief to finally be able to live just the one life as he wanted.

What I didn't recognise, in the months or even years that followed, was just how much of a sea change GM's handling of this incident brought about. Yes, there was Stonewall, and Pride marches, but this documentary brought home to me just how liberating it was for everyone else to have such a huge star, dripping with sex appeal, publicly say "Yeah, I'm gay ... so ****ing what?"

One thing I believe this documentary clearly highlighted is the deliberate obfuscation by the press of the difference between 'in the public interest' and 'of interest to the public', using the former as an excuse for publishing what actually belongs in the latter. It's something in which the public they spout 'have a right to know' are complicit. Drug dealing may be wrong, but if people weren't buying the drugs, there would soon be no dealers!

So the next time you come across one of the many pieces that purport to be 'news' but are really no more than an infringement of someone's privacy, turn the page / switch the channel / click away. You'll soon find that, in many cases, when you strip out what has no right to be there, there's little of substance left. That's the time to cancel your subscription and search instead for somewhere REAL news, that ought to be heard, can be found.