'A wink for those in high places’

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34047, 10 January 1976, Page 15

'A wink for those in high places’

( By

TIM WEIGEL,

of the "Chicago Daily Neius." through N.Z.P.A.)

CHICAGO. With “Time” and “Newsweek” leading- the revellers, the nation’s newsmob is having an orgy scandalising the memory of the late president .John F. Kennedy. Reports of J.F.K’s indis-[ creet liaisons began with the mysterious Mrs Exner. “Time” topped that withstories of Presidential affairswith “fiddle” and “faddie.”By the time “Newsweek”; was finished peeking under! the sheets this week, “re-> liable’’ sources were assert-' ing that J.F.K.’s love-life involved “stenographers and: stewardesses, an off-i Broadway star, and a Holly--wood star-in-the-making. a: sybdicated reporter, and ani ambassador’s wife.” Whew. Naturally, almost none; of this information can be: substantiated — and much; of the reporting could be branded irresponsible. Yet, [l’m shocked that the public lis far less outraged and/or titillated by scandal-sheet treatment of John Kennedy’s [image than it was by a re[cent series on homosexuality in sports. COMPLAINTS ; “Were still getting calls! and letters complaining! about the homosexuality!

series,” said a newspaper, friend. “There seems to be very little response against* printing the Kennedy stor- j ies.”

I wonder why not? I am; far more disturbed by [ printed rumours regarding a! man who once was this; country’s most powerful executive than 1 am by re-, ports that three quarter-' 'backs are gay. Frankly, I find little! [journalistic integrity in [either “investigation.” But at' least the sex-in-sports series 'attempted to provide some I insight into an area of {present concern. I don’t see[what rustling through) [J.F.K.’s closest could[achieve, except selling magazines and newspapers, or [boosting television ratings. [ Of course, there are obivious reasons why catching -John Kennedy with his [pants down would be far •less irritating to readers 'than being told about a-limp-wristed quarterback.. Our sexist society has! always winked at mis- j behaving males in high - places. Mr Grover Cleveland' publicly admitted fathering ,a child out of wedlock way; back in 1884, yet still won: -the presidential election. Ini [contrast, former football [player, Dave Kopay, con-' [fessed his “deviant” sexual {appetites in 1975 and report-; 'edly has already suffered; several threats on his life. NOTHING NEW A huge majority of Ameri-; cans rebel against being told! that big-time jocks (ath-, iletes), the last-trench defend--ers of a male supremacist; ' society, might be going soft. | ;Yet there was nothing new ‘ or shocking in the homosexual uncoverings. Babe Ruth,: 'probably the sports world’s' most-celebrated figure, was: [Widely known to be bij sexual. Certainly everyone; (knew that at least some! [modern-day athletes! 'favoured similar private! habits. So why shouldn’t a! newspaper which openly ad- 1 vertises an X-rated motion [ picture “Confessions of a Peanut Butter Freak” openly print a sex-on-sports series? “Because the sports pages !have no business talking [about subjects like sex,” [said one newspaper reader. [But the reader was wrong. The sports world has long ; asked for a sex-m-sports [ series. For years, sports promoters have known what 1 advertisers and moviepushers always exploited: [Sex sells football stars) Paul Hornung and Donnie Ander-i

<son were box office smashes j in straight, middle-American, (Green Bay, Wisconsin. The i appeal of the Green Bay “golden boys” was due to | their roguish private lives as (much as their public perlforma nces. JOE NAMATH Of course, a classic > example of building a super-; (star with sex is Joe Namath.' : How else can one explain Namath being hailed as the! National-Football league’s I "Mr Quarterback?” The New York Jets have been a less-! than-500 football team during Broadway Joe’s career. (This season he led the iN.F.L. in interceptions. Yet i Namath is worth $500,000 a ■year to Jets’ brass because ihe sells tickets more than anybody else. It is because of his “panty-hosed" mys- ; tique more than his uniformed skills. Yet, Namath is not the most flagrant case of using! (sex to hype ticket-sales to aj l sporting event. Muhammad iAli made headlines round; i the world flaunting himself jin public with several glamlorous women before his; | “thrilla in Manila” fight to ; Joe Frazier. The champ also ■engaged in a hot dispute ■ with his wife Belinda over his philandering, in full view' of reporters. [ After the fight, Ali said ! that he had staged the whole j spectacle to increase interest |in the fight. Tickets were moving slowly, the champ insisted. He had to do somei thing to turn the people on, (to create a scandal, so he I > stooped to publicly humiliating his wife in front of the i whole world — just to get I the turnstiles clicking. NO PRIVACY . Personally, I resent using (a human’s deepest and most i intimate emotions to sell (anything — whether it’s I whisky, shaving cream,. (magazines, or tickets to an. (athletic event. I agree hearti ily with Arthur .Mann, a . professor of history at the ! University of Chicago. i Commenting on publishing I the Kennedy scandal stories, IProfessor Mann said: “One of the changes that has saddened me in our times is the (breakdown of privacy .. . i The whole area of sex. which once used to be private, is no longer so.” But sports promoters and (stars cannot lament this; (regrettable loss of privacy. ■ They were the ones who: I first invited reporters into ; their bedrooms. They have (no right to be outraged ■ about what some of those ■ reporters found there.