| Original Full Text | 1Copyright by Robert J. Richardson 2024 2The Dissertation Committee for Robert J. Richardson Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Dissertation: This Just In, I’m Out: LGBTQ+ Newscaster Disclosure and Perceptions of Credibility and Likability Committee: Renita B. Coleman, Co-Supervisor Mary A. Bock, Co-Supervisor Larry Gross Curran J. Nault Kate West 3This Just In, I’m Out: LGBTQ+ Newscaster Disclosure and Perceptions of Credibility and Likability by Robert J. Richardson Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2024 4Dedication To my LGBTQ+ family members, friends, classmates, colleagues, and counterparts, whether you are out publicly or not. I hope for joy and love in your lives, and for society to continue its progress towards support for all sexual orientations and gender identities. 5Acknowledgements The acknowledgements section of another scholarly project resulted in numerous contributions to my research. I spotted Tim Pulliam’s name in the acknowledgments of an assigned reading in the African American Intellectual History course I took during my third semester. The book is From Here to Equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the Twenty-First Century by Kirsten Mullen and William Darity, a [married] pair of scholars in North Carolina’s Research Triangle where I reported prior to beginning my doctoral studies. Tim was a reporter at one of the other TV stations there, and was among about three dozen members of the media the authors thanked for giving them air time over the years. I sent Tim a picture of his name in the text, which began a short conversation about my research in my first year out of the news industry. I mentioned a pair of in-development projects, one which planned to interview Black women and another which planned to survey LGBT newscasters. Tim said he would be happy to participate in the survey. We had not discussed sexual orientation before, so this was a moment of disclosure. In the years that have followed, Tim has made both professional and personal contributions to multiple research projects of mine. He is a great journalist and a greater friend. I was thrilled to learn—one day after I defended this dissertation to become a doctor—Tim had arguably even bigger life news than mine: his boyfriend proposed and he will be a husband! I am immensely grateful to all of the other LGBTQ+ newscasters I have gotten to know over the past 16 years who have had conversations with me about their lives. While some of them are folks I knew from my own newsrooms or the local competitors, most were strangers prior to the past couple of years, people who put their faith and trust in me to take care of the personal information they shared and to treat these topics with respect. I consider myself extremely fortunate that the University of Texas School of Journalism and Media gave someone with practically no academic research experience an 6opportunity to essentially start from step one with regard to research methods. The faculty was incredibly generous with their time during the application process. Kathleen McElroy sent emails. Mary Bock, Renita Coleman, and Paula Poindexter spent time on the phone with me as I researched Ph.D. programs. My statement of purpose explained why I specifically wanted to work with each of them, and I got to! I am especially indebted to and grateful for Drs. Bock and Coleman for the compassion, patience, support, and grace they gave me following the birth of my daughter and as various unanticipated life complications arose during the completion of this degree. Stephen Reese called me after I received my acceptance letter to make a final sales pitch as to why I should come here. Gina Masullo played a big part in the basic building blocks I needed to begin to catch up to my cohort in certain areas, and has been a tremendous quasi-adjunct-committee member as her own personal coming out story coincided with the timing of this work. Curran Nault accepted me into a Radio-Television-Film graduate class and then provided an opportunity for a Queer Media Studies independent study. Kate West took me on as a teaching assistant and allowed me to design and redesign my lab instruction, which has contributed greatly to my development as a teacher. Drs. Nault and West were very encouraging committee members, and I hope to someday meet my fifth committee member in person. Larry Gross graciously participated in an interview for a profile I wrote about him for a course, and despite a well-deserved retirement, agreed to share his expertise for one more dissertation. Finally, I must acknowledge my wife for her partnership in parenting and proofreading throughout this process. She has been a constant source of comfort and calm through all sorts of frustrations, particularly following computer crashes, data loss, and replacements of my PC’s battery, fan, hard drive, power jack (thrice), and RAM upgrades, and she would say that I would be remiss to not also acknowledge that I need a new laptop. Abstract This Just In, I’m Out: LGBTQ+ Newscaster Disclosure and Perceptions of Credibility and Likability Robert J. Richardson, Ph.D.The University of Texas at Austin, 2024 Co-Supervisors: Renita B. Coleman and Mary A. Bock The first instance of a television journalist “coming out” to an audience and disclosing his non-heterosexual sexual orientation happened on CNBC in 1993. When a second gay reporter did the same in 1994 during an evening newscast on the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, some viewers called the station to threaten the newscaster. Both of these men worked in broadcast news for more than 20 years before these disclosures. LGBTQ+ journalists have long been part of newsrooms—a professional association formed in 1990—but it is only within the past decade or so that newscasters publicly identifying as sexual and gender minorities has begun to become routine. This dissertation examines viewer responses to public disclosure and how attitudes about LGBTQ+ people affect perception. The first study is an experiment in which viewers watch four television news stories presented by a gay reporter, one of which is about Pride Month festivities, and participants provide credibility and likability assessments of the newscaster. The order of the stories varies, as a method to study impression formation 7 8 theory. The second study comprises interviews with 25 openly LGBTQ+ newscasters to identify the factors involved in their decisions regarding what to share with viewers, how they disclosed, the reactions when they did, their positive and negative experiences being out in a heteronormative society still coming to terms with LGBTQ+ acceptance, and their thoughts about LGBTQ+ visibility and representation in broadcast news. The findings of these studies demonstrate that negative attitudes and prejudice toward LGBTQ+ individuals remain, but acceptance and allyship have increased in recent years. This research was funded in part by “Cheers, For Now” in honor of Dr. Dominic Lasorsa, as well as a research grant from the University of Texas School of Journalism and Media. 9 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Background: Newscaster Disclosure ........................................................................................................................... 20 Newscaster LGBQ Disclosure Background and Context ............................................................................................ 25 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 Relevance and Importance of the Research ................................................................................................................. 31 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Credibility .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Likability ..................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Impression Formation and Parasocial Interaction ........................................................................................................ 38 Key Concepts, Theories and Studies ........................................................................................................................... 39 Parasocial Interaction ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Impression Formation ........................................................................................................................................ 43 Research Design and Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 73 Sample ......................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Procedure ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Stimuli ......................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Measures ...................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Pilot Launch ................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Additional Exploratory Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 97 Participant Gender .............................................................................................................................................. 97 Noticing Disclosure ............................................................................................................................................ 98 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................... 99 Effects of Disclosure ................................................................................................................................................. 100 Effects of Timing ....................................................................................................................................................... 100 Effects of Viewer Attitudes ....................................................................................................................................... 101 Effects of Attitudes on Primacy and Recency ........................................................................................................... 102 Goodwill and Trust .................................................................................................................................................... 105 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................. 106 Additional Future Research ....................................................................................................................................... 109 Contributions to Research ......................................................................................................................................... 110 Implications for LGBQ Newscasters and the News Industry .................................................................................... 112 Study 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 114 10 Relevant Literature and Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 114 Method ....................................................................................................................................................................... 116 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 119 Obergefell and Other National Tipping Points .......................................................................................................... 119 Motivations for Disclosure ........................................................................................................................................ 122 Visibility of and for Other LGBTQ+ Newscasters........................................................................................... 123 Visibility for LGBTQ+ Youth ......................................................................................................................... 128 Visibility for Families of LGBTQ+ Youth ...................................................................................................... 129 Visibility for LGBTQ+ Viewers ...................................................................................................................... 132 Visibility for Straight Viewers ......................................................................................................................... 132 A Responsibility to Be Out? ............................................................................................................................ 134 Factors that Discourage and Encourage Disclosure ................................................................................................... 139 Family Privacy ................................................................................................................................................. 140 Outings ............................................................................................................................................................. 141 Fears About Coming Out ................................................................................................................................. 144 Coming Out is a Process .................................................................................................................................. 163 Market Size and Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 175 Never Really In ................................................................................................................................................ 181 Methods of Disclosure ............................................................................................................................................... 183 Marriage and Parenthood ................................................................................................................................. 183 Other On-Air Disclosures ................................................................................................................................ 187 Social Media Posts About Pride or National Coming Out Day ....................................................................... 192 Media Coverage of Out Newscasters ............................................................................................................... 193 Viewer Comments ..................................................................................................................................................... 197 Positive ............................................................................................................................................................. 198 Negative ........................................................................................................................................................... 200 Social Media Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................................ 203 Reporting on LGBTQ+ Issues – and Who Does It .................................................................................................... 207 Avoiding Perceptions of Political Bias ............................................................................................................ 210 Advocacy, Activism, Agendas, and Propaganda ............................................................................................. 212 Concern for the Future, and Hope ............................................................................................................................. 215 Minding The Ts and Qs.................................................................................................................................... 216 What’s Next? ................................................................................................................................................... 223 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................. 225 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 230 Participant List ........................................................................................................................................................... 235 References ................................................................................................................................................................. 236 11 List of Tables Table 1: Design Table .................................................................................................73 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVA for Disclosure on Credibility and Likability ..............................................................................84 Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Timing of Disclosure on Credibility and Likability.......................................................85 Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Timing of Disclosure on Credibility and Likability for Negative LGBQ Attitudes ......91 Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Timing of Disclosure on Credibility and Likability for Positive LGBQ Attitudes .......92 Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability for Early Disclosure, Comparing First and Fourth Impressions ...................................................................................................93 Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability for Delayed Disclosure, Comparing Third and Fourth Impressions ...................................................................................................94 Table 8.1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Negative Early, Comparing First and Fourth Impressions ...................................................................................................95 Table 8.2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Negative Delayed, Comparing First and Fourth Impressions ...................................................................................................95 Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Negative Delayed, Comparing Third and Fourth Impressions ......96 12 Table 10: Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Positive Delayed, Comparing First and Fourth Impressions .........97 Table 11: Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Credibility and Likability Comparing Gender ...........................................................................98 Table 12: Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Credibility and Likability for Positive Attitudes Who Identified Newscaster as Gay ....................99 13 List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Moderation Model of LGBQ attitudes on Disclosure ...............73 Figure 2: Conceptual Moderation Model of LGBQ attitudes on Timing .....................74 Figure 3: KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on night one of Pride in the Park 2023...............................................................................................................77 Figure 4: KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on night two of Pride in the Park 2023...............................................................................................................77 Figure 5: KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on a homicide investigation ..........78 Figure 6: KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on flooding and a mud slide evacuation order ............................................................................................78 Figure 7: KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike ...............................................................................................78 Figure 8: Measures of Credibility.................................................................................80 Figure 9: Measures of Likability ..................................................................................81 Figure 10: Relationship between timing of disclosure and credibility as moderated by LGBQ attitudes ........................................................................................86 Figure 11: Relationship between timing of disclosure and competence as moderated by LGBQ attitudes ........................................................................................87 Figure 12: Relationship between timing of disclosure and trustworthiness as moderated by LGBQ attitudes ......................................................................87 Figure 13: Relationship between timing of disclosure and goodwill as moderated by LGBQ attitudes .............................................................................................88 Figure 14: Relationship between timing of disclosure and likability as moderated by LGBQ attitudes .............................................................................................89 14 Figure 15: Relationship between timing of disclosure and likableness as moderated by LGBQ attitudes ........................................................................................89 Figure 16: Relationship between timing of disclosure and liking as moderated by LGBQ attitudes .............................................................................................90 15 Introduction When television viewers who want to watch a local newscast decide which of their stations they will watch, various factors may be involved: which channel airs other shows they watch, promotion of industry awards that denote quality, or availability of a newscast at a particular time such as noon or 9 p.m. when other channels aren’t airing news. Another major motivator can be the journalists who present the news. Viewers may like a particular newscaster’s physical appearance, voice, and the manner in which they deliver information. A regular viewer may develop a connection with a newscaster that extends beyond simply being a fan and respecting the content produced by the person. These are parasocial relationships as they involve mediated, one-way communication through the TV screen. The viewer does not actually know the newscaster, but instead creates an association with the newscaster’s “persona” (Horton & Wohl, 1956). The audience member may have a particular appreciation for the on-air talent’s confidence, composure, or communication skills. Such bonds can serve as motivation to keep tuning in to see what their favorite TV new personality is up to; it’s not just about knowing the newscaster is going to ask important questions and write scripts well, but also just knowing what they did during that day—and perhaps getting some insight into what they may do or be like outside of work. Conversation between newscasters at the end of a segment—referred to in the industry as “cross-talk” (Weiner, 1990) and typically used to fill time—occasionally includes personal anecdotes which can enhance a newscaster’s relatability, such as participation in an event featured during a report or discussing weekend plans in relation to a weather segment. The time it takes for a parasocial relationship to form can vary, but it usually develops over a series of encounters. For all such connections, there is an initial introduction or interaction in which an impression begins to form (Rubin et al., 1985). Viewers see a newscaster for the first 16 time and begin to assess that person’s appearance, voice, gestures, and communicative skills. They may make judgments about a newscaster’s warmth and trustworthiness based on facial expressions and perceived interest in particular news coverage, such as expressing enthusiasm in a report about programs to benefit children, or a newscaster’s competence and intelligence in crafting an easy-to-understand story about complicated issues based on hard-to-get information. Personal information about a newscaster also contributes to viewer impressions. Knowing things such as if their family will go see the city’s Fourth of July fireworks display or plan to cheer on their favorite team in a championship can foster and encourage viewer engagement (Nash, 2022). The revelation of some information about that particular person which was previously unknown can also alter public perception among viewers who may find it unfavorable. Keeping personal stuff private—not necessarily withholding—might allow them to build a positive reputation, while revealing information could create a divide. Perhaps the anchor’s beloved team is the hometown’s foe, eliciting disappointment from viewers who discover their favorite anchor is rooting for the rival. This is trivial and can lead to good-natured ribbing between staff members and viewers. A more serious matter is the response of viewers to the sexual orientation of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (LGBQ1) newscaster. Weather segments occasionally end with talk of how precipitation or temperatures may affect plans, and news team members might mention their own upcoming activities. A newscaster might say he’ll brave the heat to attend the Fourth of July celebration, but what if he mentions going with a husband instead of a wife? How will viewers respond? The main question of this dissertation is: “What happens to perceptions of 1 As this project primarily focuses on sexual orientation rather than gender identity, it mainly uses LGBQ since the vast majority of LGBTQ+ newscasters are gay men and lesbians. The APA Stylebook notes “there is not consensus about which abbreviation including or beyond LGBTQ to use” and says to “specify the impacted group” in acronyms, adding, “do not use LGBTQ and related abbreviations to write about legislation that primarily affects transgender people.” The acronym LGBTQ+ is used when referring to all sexual and gender minorities. 17 credibility and likability when a newscaster discloses LGBQ identity to viewers?” This project uses the term “disclosure” in order to designate a particular action: informing others about oneself. The specific focus here is the deliberate sharing of one’s sexual orientation, often referred to as “coming out.” There is no equivalent or expectation for straight people to “come out” as straight; this is similar to how whiteness has become established as an unspoken norm (Dyer, 1997), following the concept of exnomination introduced by Barthes (1957). As sexual orientation is an invisible trait and people are assumed straight until they signal otherwise (Ponse, 1976), decisions to disclose involve marking oneself as different and acquiring a stigma through reidentification as non-heterosexual (Goffman, 1963). Disclosure requires individuals to subject themselves to this stigma and redefine themselves against prejudice (McDonald, 1982). Coming out does not necessarily have to be verbal, but verbal communication can reduce or eliminate confusion. There are “direct active out” verbal disclosures, such as an explicit statement of “I’m LGBQ,” as well as “indirect active out” verbal disclosures, such as an allusion to a same-sex partner—a man talking about his husband—or another statement that lets others know (Whitman et al., 2000, p. 8). Coming out can also occur by providing clues through symbols or cultural references. Rule and Alaei (2016) classified typical cues about orientation into four categories: adornments, actions, acoustics, and appearance. The focus of this dissertation, however, is telling rather than showing. Personal life disclosure by newscasters—about any kind of information—is unlikely to occur during most newscasts. Journalists are not supposed to discuss their political beliefs or allow those views to factor into their reporting, and similar matters such as religious beliefs and opinions on polarizing issues like abortion are also expected to be kept off the air. However, there may be exceptions if a story is about discrimination against a particular group, in which 18 case a newscaster’s identity in that group can become relevant. These might include incidents involving racial profiling, an attack on a particular faith’s house of worship, or laws that either affirm or limit personal freedoms of—and even some public discussion about—LGBTQ+ individuals. Recent examples include reporter Tony Plohetski in Austin, Texas, coming out through an op-ed piece in which he discussed his own reporting on the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage and announced his upcoming wedding to a man that fall (Plohetski, 2019), and reporter Andy Pierrotti in Atlanta sharing his sexual orientation in a story about restrictive rules for gay men who want to donate blood (Weil, 2020). MSNBC anchor Jonathan Capehart occasionally self-identifies during interviews with other LGBTQ+ people about sociopolitical issues, such as asking the president of the Human Rights Campaign to “talk about the impact of not just Black voters and LGBTQ+ voters, but the two combined, like us, Black LGBTQ+ voters” (Capehart, 2024a), and eight days later telling a lesbian congresswoman from Vermont that “as a gay American, I am right there with you, sister” (Capehart, 2024b). Numerous newscasters have disclosed during Pride Month, when many stations across the country produce positive content and coverage about LGBTQ+ people. These announcements share their status in that community and convey their stations’ support. During a story about the 2023 Pride in the Park in Los Angeles and Mariah Carey’s performance, reporter Tim Pulliam said, “She let the community know, my community, that she loves us and supports us" (Pulliam, 2023c). Accompanying these circumstances in which LGBQ identity disclosure can be relevant, there is a question of what happens to an audience member’s perception of a newscaster’s credibility and likability when such disclosure occurs. The answer is likely dependent on the audience member’s attitudes about LGBQ2 people, as individuals who hold negative stereotypes 2 The focus here is specifically about sexual orientation, as there are individuals who are accepting and supportive of equal rights for gay men and lesbians but opposed to transgender rights (Burke et al., 2023). 19 and disapproving views may look upon the newscaster unfavorably. A related question involves the impact of timing. Does it benefit a newscaster to wait until an audience has already formed a positive impression of them before they share personal information that may be negatively received? This can also allow time for a parasocial relationship to develop. A newscaster may “come out” for the first time after years with a news organization, such as Plohetski’s and Pierrotti’s disclosures. Pulliam’s on-air disclosure came 11 months into his tenure at KABC, so regular viewers got to know him before learning he is gay. Conversely, perhaps it is advantageous for a newscaster to share the potentially unappealing information during their first days at a station so it is part of the initial impression formation but loses attention as time goes on, with more favorably viewed traits added and reinforced. Reporters, anchors, and meteorologists typically receive an introductory profile when they arrive at a station. This usually includes an online staff bio page and sometimes a “get to know our new newscaster” feature as part of a show. This may be an on-set interview or a pre-produced video which can also appear on the station’s website and social media pages. Content often contains their hometown, educational and professional background, personal interests and activities, information about their families, and organizational affiliations. The information might mention same-sex spouses, membership in NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists3, or involvement in groups such as the Austin LGBT Chamber of Commerce. Including such details can immediately distinguish LGBQ identity during the early impression formation stages. Studies of timing of disclosure (Buck & Plant, 2011; Dane et al., 2015; Golebiowska, 2003; Gross et al., 1980; King et al., 2008; MacInnis & Hodson, 2014; Montini, 2000) have found mixed outcomes about whether early or delayed disclosure results in more positive 3 Originally formed in 1990 as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, the organization changed its name in 2013 to NLGJA: The Association of LGBT Journalists, added Q in 2016, and added + in 2023. 20 responses from the person informed of LGBQ identity. With the exception of Dane et al. (2015), in which participants watched video of a person who mentioned a same-sex partner, and Montini (2000), who reflected on instances of her own disclosure to others and their reactions, these studies have not involved a person directly informing a research subject of their sexual orientation. The purpose of this dissertation is to test audience responses and perceptions of credibility and likability of a newscaster when the newscaster tells viewers he is gay, and to determine the effects of viewer attitudes about LGBQ people and the timing of the disclosure—that is, whether the newscaster is new to the viewer or if the viewer has become familiar with the newscaster and already formed an opinion of him. This is important for LGBQ newscasters, as well as station managers and owners, as they consider the potential rewards and ramifications of being open about their identity. The findings should help interested parties gauge benefits or drawbacks in sharing at a particular stage, and determine if audience makeup such as highly progressive or conservative communities make disclosure more or less advantageous. Background: Newscaster Disclosure Personal information about a newscaster has the potential to alter audience perception. Charity involvement and community service can boost a person’s public image. Insight into another person’s activities, hobbies, and families can make them more relatable and likable. Knowledge about socially unfavorable or negatively viewed traits can make a person less appealing, so newscasters may be cautious about sharing personal information associated with certain stigma. For example, if a gay newscaster is working in a conservative area such as South Carolina, which is consistently ranked as the state with the least equitable climate for the LGBTQ+ community (C. Jones, 2022), they may be apprehensive about bringing awareness to their sexual orientation. Some journalists make efforts to hide their faith from sources and 21 audience members (Kaleem, 2019), as there is a “taboo of religion in newsrooms” (Pope et al., 2020, para. 14). However, hiding is not an option for some, such as Muslim women who wear hijabs which visually disclose their faith. Tahera Rahman, now at the NBC affiliate in Dallas, “received some negative, hateful messages, and even threats” when, on February 8, 2018, at a station in Iowa, she became the first U.S. newscaster to wear a hijab on air (Lowe, 2018, para. 10). To date, only two others have joined Rahman as hijab-wearing newscasters in the U.S., and they also received “malicious” messages “not based on … actual journalism skills” (Combs, 2021, para. 13-14). Sometimes negative or negatively viewed information involving newscasters comes out without their intent and against their wishes. When newscasters become involved in incidents concerning law enforcement, there may be media coverage from news organizations—even their own. These include domestic violence arrests in which newscasters are suspects (Eck, 2021; Kennedy, 2018; NBC10, 2019) or victims (Carrillo, 2020), drunk-driving arrests (Miller, 2021; Parker, 2023; Swan, 2022), and drug cases. A Kentucky station covered the arrest of its meteorologist on marijuana charges (Fuller, 2016a) and the news director provided an update the same week that the meteorologist had already planned to the leave the station that month and would not return on air (Fuller, 2016b). Prosecutors later dropped the charges (Callais, 2016), and there was no public comment from the meteorologist. As in that instance, many cases that could be considered “bad press” about newscasters prompt public statements from newsroom managers rather than the on-air talent themselves. Those concerning the legal system typically result in temporary and often permanent removal from the airwaves. For example, drunk-driving arrests have resulted in a variety of responses from reporters who became suspects and subjects of stories: one immediately resigned with a 22 short written statement to viewers that did not explicitly mention the arrest (KSAT, 2023; Parker, 2023), one served a suspension and returned with an on-air mea culpa (Miller, 2021), while a third lost his job and months later appeared on another station to apologize and express hope for a second chance (Moore, 2023; Swan, 2022). One reporter fired after a domestic violence arrest—who then retired from the industry—participated in interviews after prosecutors dropped the charges (Moore, 2019). A second has never spoken publicly about his case despite a judge’s dismissal of the charges (Streva, 2019), and now reports for a different station. A third was fired after just four months at a station following her arrest for domestic violence, and used her subsequent acquittal by a jury as a launching point to advocate for both victims and the falsely accused when she began working at a new station later that year (Baltin, 2021). That anchor’s decision to be open about her case allowed her to publicly discuss her experience as a survivor of abuse as well, and other newscasters have shared similar stories with viewers as a way of combating stigma associated with being a victim of domestic violence (Bonds Staples, 2016) and sexual assault (Bradley, 2017). CNN anchor T.J. Holmes told viewers about a traffic stop encounter with police both to assert his innocence—he didn’t receive a citation—and to alert viewers to the incident which he attributed to racial profiling (Frank, 2012). The decision of if and when to speak about personal information that might result in a negative reaction from the audience is often tied to the perceived benefits such openness may have for viewers who are either in similar situations themselves or know someone else who is. There may be a risk of rejection due to the disclosure, and newscasters (as well as their managers) may weigh such risk versus reward. “Today” and “NBC Nightline” anchor Jane Pauley said her “decision to ‘come out’ and tell the American public about her experiences with bipolar disorder” was because she wanted to 23 help others, but she waited until she reached a point in her career that she “could afford it” (Simon, 2005, para. 19). “Good Morning America” anchor Dan Harris had a panic attack during a live broadcast in 2004 which his doctor attributed to recreational drugs; Harris (2014) disclosed details of his mental health and substance abuse issues to viewers 10 years later, and continues to share his story (Ferguson, 2018; Robinson, 2020; Rogers, 2024). Several other newscasters have used their platforms to talk about battles with serious mental health issues (Huff, 2009; Meade & Bacharach, 2018; Steiner, 2014). When Quad Cities anchor David Bohlman returned from a six-week leave of absence in early 2024, he began his first newscast by telling viewers he wanted to acknowledge what happened. He brought up how his station often ends mental health stories by saying, “If you or someone you know are in crisis, contact 988,” which is the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (WQAD, 2024). He sought a similar resource provided by his company, and worked with them, a therapist, and a doctor. While he never said the word “suicide,” a Facebook post on his professional page three weeks earlier stated “I was extremely depressed. I was anxious, and I’ll be straightforward with you — I was suicidal. I called the crisis lifeline” (Bohlman, 2024). Reporters and anchors have in recent years shared personal stories about experiences with issues including abortion (Cuda Kroen, 2022; Hill, 2022), alcoholism (Dooley et al., 2016; WCVB, 2022), drug addiction (Hays, 2021), gambling addiction (KGO, 2018), sex addiction (Swarner, 2019), and the loss of children to narcotics overdoses (Kennecke, 2018). Unlike admissions prompted by arrests or other associated legal ramifications, these types of confessions are about things that could be kept private, similar to information about sexual orientation. These disclosures are decided upon by the newscasters as something they wish to acknowledge to their audience. Timing may coincide with a particular event such as Domestic Violence Awareness Month (Baltin, 2021) or Pride Month, during which numerous newscasters 24 have come out to viewers as gay (e.g., Aviles, 2019; Plohetski, 2019). Some critics contend these stories are ploys to attract viewers during television sweeps periods as “we only hear about talent’s cancer battle, alcoholism, depression, or other medical problems during the ratings” (S. Jones, 2023, para. 4). However, there are instances when a news story affects people including newscasters, such as in April 2020 when then-WXIA reporter Andy Pierrotti shared that the Georgia Department of Health asked him to donate plasma after his recovery from COVID-19, but then disqualified him after learning he is gay (Weil, 2020). He shared his story on air with Atlanta viewers who had watched him for four years, and online with fans he had cultivated during 15 years on television (A. Pierrotti, personal correspondence, July 2022). Each of these announcements has the potential to change the way an audience member perceives a newscaster. People form impressions of everyone they encounter, including people they see on television, and psychologists have spent decades researching the ways people make these evaluations about others based on initial and then increasing amounts of information. Asch (1946) identified this assessment of others based on individual and collective traits as “impression formation,” a term which has been used in thousands of studies, while other similar and related research has also been called person perception and person memory (Chen et al., 2022; Vonk, 1994). These are the ways in which we recognize characteristics of other individuals and what we remember about them. Each new bit of information updates the impression a viewer previously formed of a television news personality they know—or think they know. When a newscaster reveals something personal, it can change the way they are perceived, especially if it is something that some viewers might view unfavorably. Decisions about disclosure, when and how to do it, and with what particular verbiage, must take into consideration the current perceptions of the individual newscaster as well as attitudes about the 25 issue with which they are identifying themselves as being associated. LGBQ newscasters, aware that many people hold negative attitudes about non-heterosexual individuals, know that informing viewers of sexual or gender minority identity could change the impressions people have of them. This study seeks to discover if the impressions actually change, and test the effects of different attitudes about LGBQ people and different times of disclosure. Newscaster LGBQ Disclosure Background and Context 2023 marks the 30th anniversary of the first time an LGBQ reporter on a nationally televised newscast came out of the closet to viewers. As part of his work as the chief science and medical correspondent for the Consumer News and Business Channel (CNBC), Steve Gendel reported on AIDS and other health issues that affected gay men. Gendel followed research into physical differences between gay and straight men that focused specifically on the brain, and when he read about a study that found the corpus callosum—a nerve tract beneath the cerebral cortex that connects the two hemispheres of the brain—was larger in gay men, he put together a report. During his on-camera introduction to the story on July 15, 1993, Gendel stated a personal interest in the subject and told the audience he was a gay man (Williams, 1993): If people are going to understand what homosexuality is they have to understand who we are, and the only images people have, I think, is when we are dancing, or marching in a parade. They don't see us in suits and ties … as businessmen, and their fellow neighborhood reporter (Gay Cable Network, 1993). The public declaration was unprecedented. The sexual orientation of other gay newscasters was known by colleagues and some of the people they covered, but this was the first instance of disclosure of sexual orientation by a newscaster to their viewers. Gendel made the same disclosure during a live broadcast of NBC’s The Today Show in June 1994, marking the first time a gay person disclosed on a broadcast network (NLGJA, n.d.). A few months later, Garrett Glaser—who became “the first television journalist to come out of the closet to the radio and 26 television news industry” while representing NLGJA at the 1992 Radio-Television News Directors Association4 convention (Polakowski, 2009)—became the second openly gay newscaster when he came out during a report on KNBC, the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles. Immediately after Glaser said, “As a gay man who has lost many friends to AIDS,” some viewers called the station with threats to harm him, which prompted managers to publicly condemn the comments and support Glaser (Polakowski, 2009). Thomas Roberts, then with CNN, became the first openly gay national anchor when he came out during a speech at the 2006 NLGJA convention. A journalist for The Boston Globe who was in attendance reported on the announcement (Diaz, 2006), and Roberts participated in interviews soon after (Keith, 2006). Gradually, more newscasters joined other public figures as “out” lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals, disclosing this element of their identities to the viewers at home. Charles Perez self-published Confessions of a Gay Anchorman in late 2010, following his demotion and dismissal from a Miami station after his outing by a former partner. He called on other gay newscasters to come out, particularly those in prominent positions, writing “It's time for the Andersons and the Shepards … and the Sams, if they are gay, to just stop playing this stupid and damaging game” (Perez, 2010, p. 214). A few months later, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow—who came out during college—also implored her queer peers to make themselves visible, telling an interviewer, “I'm sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they're doing what they're doing, but I do think that if you're gay you have a responsibility to come out" (Freeman, 2011, para. 20). In a follow-up blog post titled “Anchors away,” Maddow (2011) added that this disclosure should take place “if and when we feel that we can” (para. 4). ABC World News Now fill-in anchor Dan Kloeffler did so on live television later that 4 The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) changed its name to Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) in 2009. 27 year, during a report about actor Zachary Quinto’s public coming out (Kloeffler, 2011). Others gradually followed, including most of the men Perez named in his 2010 memoir. Anderson Cooper came out in July 2012 in an email to a journalist (Sullivan, 2012). Two months later, Good Morning America weather anchor Sam Champion came out to a New York Times reporter at Thomas Roberts’s wedding reception, (Bernstein, 2012), and announced his engagement to a man during a GMA broadcast the following week (ABC News, 2012). When then-Fox News anchor Shepard Smith confirmed rumors of his sexuality in 2017 (Andrews, 2017), viewers for the first time could see openly gay lead anchors on all three major cable news networks, as he joined Cooper and Don Lemon of CNN and Maddow on MSNBC. Each disclosure received press coverage, and similar announcements have continued to be treated as newsworthy (Bose, 2021; Rosenthal, 2021; Shewfelt, 2019). Some broadcast outlets have recently demonstrated support for public visibility of LGBQ newscasters. Dozens of television channels and local stations now participate in Pride Month festivities, with many showcasing the contributions of their LGBTQ+ staff. Some of the content produced for these broadcasts are profiles of queer newscasters opening up about their personal experiences as gay men and lesbians, such as a series of black-and-white videos featuring all five of the LGBQ newscasters at the ABC affiliate in Austin, Texas (Eubank, 2021). In 2023, using the headline “Black, Queer and Out Loud,” ABC News and the eight ABC-owned television stations promoted KABC and ABC News One reporter Tim Pulliam, ABC News correspondent Steve Osunsami, and ABC News Audio podcast host LZ Granderson (Pulliam, 2023a). Problem Statement The decision to disclose carries potential reward and risk. There is an additional benefit to the discloser by no longer having to hide aspects of one’s identity; stresses of covering, 28 passing, and remaining closeted are released. Straight newscasters have long been able—and even encouraged—to share information about their personal lives and families. The same opportunities should be afforded to gay newscasters to acknowledge their partners. Disclosure can have positive results by bringing added visibility to the gay community at large and helping to normalize the presence of LGBQ individuals, particularly in prominent professional fields. News consumers who like and trust a journalist may readjust their attitudes toward queer people if they find out that journalist is gay. However, researchers have found LGBQ broadcast journalists are concerned about negative reactions from viewers and supervisors (Eddings, 1996; Gross, 2002; Magrath, 2020; Ostertag, 2006; Rodriguez, 2019). Audience members with unfavorable views of LGBQ people may have a negative reaction and not want to support a gay reporter. They may opt to change the channel, or call or write a station to express grievances about promoting what they perceive as a deviant lifestyle. News managers want to retain audiences and advertisers; the potential loss of either is often taken into consideration in decisions about what will be broadcast. Newscasters do not want to lose credibility in the eyes of viewers, and if the audience holds negative attitudes about gay people, staying silent about LGBQ identity may be a safe yet demoralizing decision. As more gay newscasters disclose their sexual orientation on air and online, or consider doing so, it is important to understand the implications of these choices. Research Questions This project seeks to answer questions about the effects of newscaster disclosure of sexual orientation on audience perceptions of the newscaster, specifically on the aspects of credibility and likability. It asks whether knowing a newscaster is gay results in less favorable views. Credibility is a well-studied topic in broadcast news, with researchers examining 29 perceived differences based on factors such as gender, race, age, physical attractiveness, and vocal qualities. There are a few studies of perceptions of credibility of LGBQ persons in fields such as education and the legal system, but it has not been investigated in journalism. This project also tests the effects of timing of disclosure—comparing viewer responses between those exposed to a newscaster who is immediately identified as gay versus viewers who learn that information once they have already become familiar with the newscaster, such that the disclosure takes place after impression formation occurs. Research about timing of disclosure has primarily involved indirect or hypothetical disclosure. It has rarely included direct disclosure with participants being told by a subject that the subject is gay. Newscasters have come out on-air, in printed interviews, in social media posts; sometimes these announcements receive additional press coverage for their novelty. Disclosure is rarely a one-time occurrence, as gay individuals generally tell different individuals at different times. Upon meeting someone new, they decide whether to share this information. When disclosure takes place on television, it is recorded for all to potentially see. Its documentation is permanent and public. While there is theoretical knowledge about the visibility of prominent LGBQ individuals, there is limited empirical research into the impact on viewers and how their impressions of the public figures change upon learning of their sexual orientation. Newscasters such as Gendel and NLGJA Hall of Famer Hank Plante received messages from LGBQ viewers who said the visibility of the TV personalities provided examples of respectable out gay men they could show to relatives (H. Plante, personal communication, August 27, 2021), but there were also negative reactions. After Glaser’s disclosure in 1994, the KNBC “newsroom switchboard lit up with calls from viewers,” many of whom were angry (Polakowski, 2009, para. 1). The historical record does not indicate whether stations with openly gay newscasters lost their share of the audience, 30 or if Gendel or Glaser lost credibility or likability in the minds of previously loyal viewers. Therefore, an experiment is the best method to study responses to situations like the on-air disclosures of Gendel and Glaser. Hellmueller and Trilling’s (2012) meta-analysis of credibility studies found a vast majority were experiments or surveys, almost equal in number, but source credibility mainly used experiments. An experiment can test whether early, delayed, or no disclosure is better. It can answer questions about whether audiences respond more favorably when they learn a newscaster is gay during their first exposure to the speaker or after they have already become familiar with the person’s work. Perhaps it is better to first form a favorable opinion and then find out. If members of a control group that never experiences disclosure rate the newscaster substantially higher than both the early and delayed disclosure groups, that could indicate viewers do not want gay newscasters to come out of the closet. The timing variable allows for the application of theories of impression formation (Asch, 1946; Brewer, 1988) and parasocial relationships (e.g. Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011; Horton & Wohl, 1956; Rubin et al., 1985). If a viewer forms a positive opinion of a newscaster across multiple stories, will their views change upon learning the journalist is gay? If so, how much change will occur? If disclosure of homosexuality happens early—especially if a viewer has negative pre-existing attitudes about LGBQ individuals—will a negative impression form and be maintained, or will opinions improve with continued exposure? This project’s first study hypothesizes that pre-existing viewer attitudes will moderate favorability perceptions of gay newscasters, such that viewers with negative attitudes toward gay people will respond negatively toward the revelation that a newscaster is gay. This study hypothesizes that timing of disclosure will also make a difference due to impression formation. It hypothesizes that delayed disclosure will result in more favorable responses than early 31 disclosure. It predicts that viewers exposed to the early disclosure treatment will establish a lower favorability rating of the newscaster, and the rating will not increase substantially as the viewer sees more reports from the newscaster. It predicts that viewers exposed to the delayed disclosure treatment will not drop their ratings substantially as they have already formed an impression of the newscaster, so their final ratings will be higher than those from participants who receive the early disclosure treatment. The project’s second study interviews newscasters who are sexual and gender minorities about the responses they have gotten from viewers associated with their identity as openly LGBTQ+5. It asks questions about motivations to be publicly out, factors that discourage or encourage disclosure to viewers, the methods used to share this information, perceptions of their abilities, coverage of LGBTQ+-related topics, and ongoing challenges for LGBTQ+ people. Relevance and Importance of the Research The ability to anticipate how audience members will react favorably or unfavorably to knowledge of a newscaster’s sexual orientation, and whether it is best for viewers to find out early or after they have already established a connection to a newscaster, are important factors for newscasters and news managers to consider. The decision to disclose is a personal matter, but in the public-facing world of broadcast news, personal and professional information can become intertwined. Answering questions about how LGBTQ+ individuals are perceived—especially in relation to perceptions of LGBTQ+ public figures and media trust—can help us better understand how far society has come in efforts toward achieving equality and decreasing discrimination, while also assessing how far we still have to go. Results which show openly gay newscasters deemed as credible as they were without disclosure can provide encouragement to 5 All but one of the second study’s participants are cisgender and most identify as gay or lesbian. There was one transgender participant, and one cisgender participant who has a non-binary spouse identifies as queer. 32 closeted newscasters who fear negative responses from viewers and damage to their careers. Rodriguez (2019) found gay broadcasters who were open to friends and family made decisions about disclosing their orientation to people at work based on their bosses’ views. Those who worked for managers with accepting attitudes chose to be out to their colleagues, while supervisors who seemed hostile to homosexuals resulted in closeted on-air talent feeling discouraged about coming out (Rodriguez, 2019). By the nature of how broadcast news works, newscasters cannot be out to their audience without being out to their co-workers in the newsroom. Some have been told by management not to share their sexuality with viewers (Lord, 2020; Rodriguez, 2019). Studies have found openly gay workers are more productive (e.g. Badgett et al., 2013; Powers, 1997; Winfeld, 2014). The 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County provided legal protections against job discrimination due to sexual orientation or gender identity, but it did not eliminate hostile work environments. Workplaces that support gay employees create more hospitable environments for disclosure and allow LGBQ workers to exist without worry of disciplinary actions due to being LGBQ. It is important for scholars to be aware of the White, male, heteronormative lens through which broadcast news has normally been transmitted. This involves not just the persons presenting the content, but also the persons to whom they are presenting. Who is the audience a news organization intends to serve? How do the traits and background of a journalist affect the ways they approach a story and the frames they use to construct their message? What impact do these factors play on the audience reached by these stories—both in attracting consumers but also affecting their knowledge and worldview? How does the absence of representation in stories and as sources affect prevailing attitudes? Scholars must also be mindful of the lens through which they examine studies of journalists and journalism, as much communications research was 33 “developed from the white, able-bodied male perspective and was based on the study of male subjects” (Mertens, 2005, p. 17). Critical theorists will take note of the power dynamics in news presentation and content; by identifying problem areas and inequities, critical researchers can challenge the status quo in efforts to make news more inclusive and representative. A lack of diverse backgrounds and perspectives among newsroom staff results in a narrow range of voices represented in news coverage (Gist, 1990). White reporters use minority sources less often than their non-White peers (Nishikawa et al., 2009; Poindexter et al., 2003; Smith, 2008). Using predominantly White sources can result in the diminishment or exclusion of perspectives of minority groups, and their absence from news means absence in the minds of the majority group, which serves to perpetuate the power imbalance. It continues cultivation and symbolic annihilation of what is important and what is not, of who matters and who does not. Poindexter et al. (2003) found that a lack of diversity in newsrooms leads to lopsided coverage presented from a mostly White perspective. Shanahan and Morgan (1999) noted that most representations of gay people on television were “designed for a straight audience, not a gay audience’s images of or for themselves” (p. 94). Alwood (1996) and Gross (2002) argued that the “straight” media ignored gay issues for many years; it took gay journalists such as Randy Shilts and Leroy Aarons to advocate for such coverage. Sexual minorities do not have inherent immutable characteristics associated with race and ethnicity which can make them physically invisible; lack of media depictions can exacerbate this invisibility, but “increased visibility could lead to a demystification of this historically marginalized and underrepresented group” (Netzley, 2010, p. 983). Studies show exposure to LGBTQ+ individuals—both stereotypical and atypical—in comedy, drama, and reality television improves attitudes toward gays and lesbians as a result of parasocial interaction (Schiappa et al., 34 2005, 2006). While those studies specified “likable” LGBTQ+ individuals, Lissitsa and Kushnirovich (2020) found valence doesn’t matter. Exposure to positive, neutral, and negative depictions of LGBTQ+ individuals on television increases awareness and “creates intimacy and familiarity with LGBT difficulties and disadvantages, generating empathy” (Lissitsa and Kushnirovich, 2020, p. 126). Minority groups have knowledge and value, and including minority voices as story tellers and subjects provides visibility—and in turn, power—in the eyes of both the majority and minority. Critical studies focused on minorities’ absence from or participation in journalism are crucial for addressing inequalities in both society and the news industry. Criticizing long-standing norms requires identifying them, finding targets for improvement, and making recommendations for change. Without such recognitions and demands, journalism will continue to ignore certain groups and many in the majority will continue to view minority issues as not being newsworthy. Viewers of minority groups may want to see themselves represented among the faces of a news team. While this is traditionally racial and ethnic representation, LGBTQ+ viewers likely want to see themselves represented as well—not just having their stories told, but told by members of their community. Literature Review Credibility This project tests perceptions of newscaster credibility when disclosure of LGBQ identity takes place. Studies of newscaster credibility began more than a half-century ago (Markham, 1965), building on work begun in the 1950s by Carl Hovland and several collaborators. Hovland et al. (1959) identified two dimensions of credibility: expertness and trustworthiness. For a speaker to be credible, the listener needs to believe the person understands both the content and context of what they talk about and also tell the truth. Andersen (1961) conceived an additional 35 dynamism factor which dealt with presentation. Berlo et al.’s (1969) three dimensions of credibility used qualification to correspond with expertness, safety to correspond with trustworthiness, and dynamism as an “intensifier” described as “the energy available to the source which can be used to emphasize, augment, and implement [a speaker’s] suggestions” (p. 575). In each of these interpretations, the source needed to be believable and the information needed to be correct, with dynamism meaning the speaker also had some appeal. Markham’s (1965) original definition of source credibility of newscasters was “the judgments an audience makes about the communicative ability of a speaker … at a given time” (p. 1). Source credibility is not fixed. It can improve or diminish as other things change, like the shifting opinions of viewers. Scholars have variably defined source credibility as a person’s competence (Brann & Himes, 2010), believability (McCroskey & Teven, 1999), and a combination of composure, sincerity, professionalism, and attraction (Eisend, 2006). A listener’s evaluation of these characteristics affects how credible a source is perceived to be (Gong & Eppler, 2021). In turn, the credibility of a source influences the credibility of the message. Sanders and Pritchett (1971) concluded that if viewers deem a newscaster to have a positive image, they are more likely to tune in and believe what is said. Based on the existing research, my conceptual definition of newscaster credibility is the trust given by viewers to a source to provide accurate information in an appealing way that entices continued viewing. Cathcart (1969) identified newscasters as providing both information and entertainment, with the qualities most preferred by viewers to be knowledge, experience, trustworthiness, honesty, conviction, and an appealing appearance. The most desirable characteristics—the experience and trustworthiness associated with credibility—satisfied viewers’ needs and desires and gave a reason to keep tuning in to the same newscast (Cathcart, 1969). A viewer will go elsewhere if 36 they feel a source does not know what they are talking about, is untruthful, does not have concern for the well-being of the listeners or story subjects, or is not appealing. Newhagen and Nass (1989) found that although viewers held opinions about particular television networks and stations, they formed credibility judgments based on individual anchors and reporters. A newscaster’s credibility, which is important for gaining and retaining the attention of viewers, can also make a message more memorable and impactful (Grabe & Samson, 2011). Studies of the credibility of individuals who appear on broadcast news have considered various traits associated with race (Balon et al., 1978; Escobedo, 2015), gender, (Brann & Himes, 2010; Brownlow & Zebrowitz, 1990; Etling & Young, 2007; Luisi et al., 2021; Weibel et al., 2008), age (Brownlow & Zebrowitz, 1990; Engstrom & Ferri, 1998, 2000), clothing and makeup (Akpoghiran et al., 2017; Engstrom, 1996; Grabe & Samson, 2011), and vocal qualities (Chattopadhyay et al., 2003; Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014; Sanders & Pritchett, 1971; Shosteck, 1973). Men are usually perceived as more credible than women, White more credible than non-White, mid-30s and older more credible than younger, and people with attractive physical characteristics and pleasant voices—what is typically considered professional looking and sounding—are going to be viewed as higher in credibility than those who are less appealing to watch or listen to. Research linking newscaster credibility and LGBQ identity must consider the relationships between newscasters and audience members, especially the bonds formed when someone is a regular viewer—maybe even a fan—of a particular anchor or reporter. The potential effects of sexual orientation on perceptions of newscaster credibility have yet to be studied, but several scholars in the past two decades looked at credibility of LGBQ individuals when sexual orientation is known by others (e.g. Anderson & Kanner, 2011; Batten et al., 2020; Boren & McPherson, 2018; DeSouza & Olson, 2018; Olson, 2014; Russ et al., 37 2002). This research has primarily taken place in the field of higher education, following similar studies of credibility involving gender which found male instructors rated as more credible than females (e.g. Andersen & Miller, 1997; Hargett, 1999). An experiment by Russ et al. (2002) found a group of students who heard an instructor mention a same-sex partner rated the instructor as less credible than did a group of students who heard the same instructor mention an opposite-sex partner. DeSouza and Olson (2018) replicated these findings, but Boren and McPherson’s (2018) attempt to find similar results at “arguably a progressive school” (p. 249) did not find differences in credibility ratings. This demonstrates the importance of measuring subjects “representing a greater range of attitudes and beliefs” (Boren & McPherson, 2018, p. 249). Another field with limited research of LGBTQ+ speaker credibility is the judicial system. Olson (2014) studied perceptions by jurors of the credibility of gay and lesbian witnesses in court cases and found that gay male witnesses received higher credibility scores than straight men and women, while lesbians received the lowest scores. However, the researcher concluded credibility perceptions were tied to gender rather than sexual orientation (Olson, 2014). Likability This project also asks questions about likability when disclosure of LGBQ identity takes place. As noted previously, newscasters—as well as their managers—want them to be liked by viewers in order to have bigger audiences than the competitors. Several studies of newscasters have distinguished likability from credibility, although the two work in tandem. Shosteck (1973) categorized newscaster characteristics into the two dimensions of competence and likability, associating competence with professional attributes—which directly connects with credibility—while likability is based on appearance and personal appeal, which can contribute to or remain 38 independent from credibility. Roberts and Dickson’s (1984) ratings of newscasters asked viewers about knowledge, trustworthiness, voice, personality, grammar, dress, analytical ability, and attractiveness—without specifying any criteria for attractiveness, and thus could be physical features or other form of appeal. Krueger and Fox (1991) merged those to identify likability “as the combination of ratings from indexes of appearance, personal appeal, voice and style characteristics” (p. 405). Chaiken and Eagly (1983) similarly observed two dimensions for likability of communicators: attractiveness and expertise. The categories associated with attractiveness were “likable, friendly, approachable, pleasing, modest, warm, and unbiased,” while expertise factors were “knowledgeable, intelligent and competent” (p. 245), with the expertise terms matching those often used for credibility. In response to an analysis of likability studies that concluded efforts to measure likability have been inconsistent, Reysen (2005) devised a likability scale that has been cited hundreds of times since its creation. Impression Formation and Parasocial Interaction When a newscaster joins a station, or a news consumer moves to a different media market or starts watching a different channel, the viewer will form an opinion of their new source of information. Asch’s (1946) seminal research that lay the foundation for impression formation theory identified how initial assessments of a person’s traits factor into future evaluations of that person. People form impressions of everyone they encounter, whether these involve direct contact or interactions through media. Horton and Wohl’s (1956) theory of parasocial interaction identified the strong connections viewers can develop with media figures. A viewer can feel as if they have a relationship with newscasters who literally speak directly to them, but the bond is a “simulacrum of conversational give and take” (Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 215) as the communication is one-sided with the viewer unable to speak back to the performer. Rubin et al. 39 (1985) identified impression formation theory as a likely influence on parasocial interaction involving “newscasters who seek to establish and maintain loyal audiences” (p. 175). This dissertation uses impression formation theory to study the way viewers assess newscasters and how these evaluations may change or remain stable, not only with the addition of more of a newscaster’s work product—the video reports seen and heard by the viewer—but also with the addition of personal information about the newscaster, specifically that he is gay. It also uses parasocial interaction theory to consider the connection a viewer may make with a newscaster and how that can influence the liking of a newscaster and continued liking of him after learning he is gay. Based on previous parasocial interaction studies, it expects to find that viewers who form a parasocial relationship will be more accepting of LGBQ disclosure. Key Concepts, Theories and Studies Parasocial Interaction Many studies of impression formation focus on learning about a person’s particular traits in a specifically presented order or having direct interactions with individuals, but broadcast news involves a mediated, parasocial interaction between newscasters and viewers. Theorized by Horton and Wohl (1956), parasocial interaction is an explanation for an attachment of a viewer to a media figures. Media exposure to on-screen individuals can develop into a one-way relationship in which a viewer feels a connection with the person they see—but who does not see them. These connections can begin to develop within minutes (Auter, 1992; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011), although they typically require repeated exposure in a longer-term situation (Chung et al., 2007). The foundational ideas of parasocial interaction continue to be applied in studies of broadcast news more than 50 years after its conceptualization (e.g. Cummins & Cui, 2014; Eyal & Dailey, 2012; Giles, 2002; Gong & Eppler, 2021; Pellizzaro & Liseblad, 2021; 40 Wojcieszak & Azrout, 2016). There is an element of intimacy as viewers welcome news anchors into their living rooms and bedrooms for private conversations, which contributes to the development of relationships with the personae of newscasters through the parasocial interaction process (Perse, 1990; Rubin et al., 1985). Audience members may develop a fondness for a particular person on a news team, such as a lead male anchor, based on “direct observation and interpretation of his appearance, his gestures and voice, his conversation and conduct in a variety of situations” (Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 216). Loyal viewers who consistently watch their local news may see certain members of a station’s staff as many as five days a week, and sometimes across several shows in a single day. Through these daily visits, the audience begins to know an on-air talent based on his or her image as seen on the screen, identifying and associating with certain characteristics of particular newscasters (Levy, 1979; Sanders & Pritchett, 1971). Viewers can transform the perceived characteristics of the newscaster’s personality into what Horton and Wohl (1956) called a “persona.” A newscaster’s persona includes what they say and how they deliver this content. Horton and Wohl (1956) concluded that television personae “lure the attention of the audience and … create the easy impression that there is a kind of participation open to them in the program itself,” and that the personalities on television offer friendship (p. 218). Newscasters who present themselves as friendly to viewers can seem relatable and personable, which begins building a positive parasocial relationship that keeps viewers coming back (Rubin et al., 1985; Krishnan, 2009). By cultivating this relationship, even though it is one-sided, local stations can build an audience of viewers who want to continue to tune in to the news in order to see and hear their favorite anchors, reporters, and meteorologists, focusing on the performers in addition to finding out about the day’s events. 41 Perse (1990) found that viewers in good spirits will be further pleased and comforted by a smile of a newscaster, and concluded that parasocial interaction is particularly strong when an audience member is happy while watching the news. Jokes about lighter elements of the news and references to the personal lives of those presenting the news adds personality and allows viewers to better “know” their newscasters (Blumler, 1979; Bogart, 1980; Holm, 2006; Nash, 2022). This information can make a newscaster relatable when viewers learn about things they have in common with people they see on TV, local personalities who live in their community. News audiences want content presented to them by likeable people (Nash, 2022). An audience member who learns information about a newscaster that makes them unhappy—especially if it makes them dislike the newscaster—would reasonably lead to weaker parasocial interaction. While parasocial relationships can form with disliked personae (Dibble & Rosaen, 2011), parasocial interaction is more likely to occur and be stronger when the individual is liked (Tian & Hoffner, 2010). Krishnan (2009) determined that viewers perceive anchors who laugh and smile more are more personable, and the “moderately friendly, yet open about themselves” anchors had the highest levels of parasocial interaction (p. 24). Closeted newscasters who withhold information about their personal lives, due to fears of negative responses to talk about same-sex partners, may risk missing out on cultivating parasocial interaction and the benefits that come with being open about themselves. Parasocial interaction can occur as impression formation takes place, with parasocial relationships most likely to form when a viewer likes and admires a newscaster. A viewer who develops a favorable view of a newscaster can also develop a parasocial relationship with that newscaster, feeling a closeness and connection and wanting to engage with them more. Frederick et al. (2012) identified a certain set of fandom resulting from parasocial interaction, as it can 42 foster loyalty and devotion. Parasocial interaction has also been found to lead to what Osterman and Hecmanczuk (2020) call “parasocial forgiveness,” in which perceivers are more forgiving of media figures who commit “offenses” when the perceiver has a parasocial relationship with the target—and the closer the connection, the more forgiving they will be. This research follows several studies in recent years which considered circumstances in which there are “transgressions,” “betrayals,” or “moral violations” involving media figures, and how parasocial interaction moderates and mediates how much audiences are willing to forgive (e.g., Bostwick & Lookadoo, 2017; E. Cohen, 2010; Frederick et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2018; Sanderson & Emmons, 2013). People who have strong parasocial connections can feel more let down and deceived than those who don’t experience the same perceived closeness (Bostwick & Lookadoo, 2017). There can be a quick and substantial reduction in feelings of closeness when a viewer learns something negative about a media figure—potentially leading to a voluntary “parasocial breakup6” (J. Cohen, 2003)—although this depends on the seriousness of the offense (E. Cohen, 2010). However, parasocial interaction can also mitigate a person’s response and lead them to be more forgiving, accepting the media figure in spite of something they normally would frown upon (Osterman & Hecmanczuk, 2020; Sanderson & Emmons, 2013). Hu et. al (2018) found that widely liked and admired media figures are likely to receive forgiveness and have their transgressions attributed to external factors. If a viewer forms a parasocial relationship with a gay anchor or reporter, then negative response to a newscaster’s disclosure of LGBQ identity should be reduced. Except for some people with extreme negative attitudes toward LGBQ people, it is unlikely a voluntary parasocial 6 A term coined by J. Cohen (2003) to describe a parasocial relationship ending due to a favorite TV personality no longer being on TV as “shows go on and off the air, characters change, and actors come and go,” akin to the ending of “a romantic relationship, or the death of a close friend” rather than ending one’s support for that person (p. 192). 43 breakup will occur. Prior studies of parasocial breakups and forgiveness included matters ranging from assault (Hu, 2016), sexual misconduct (Osterman & Hecmanczuk, 2020), and alcoholism (Sanderson & Emmons, 2013), to Lebron James leaving and later returning to the Cleveland Cavaliers (Bostwick and Lookadoo, 2017). Being gay should be comparatively low if considered a transgression, and based on the findings that there is frequently forgiveness when there is parasocial interaction, there should be greater forgiveness or acceptance of an LGBQ newscaster. As it usually takes repeated exposures for parasocial relationships to develop, parasocial interaction is unlikely to happen before early LGBQ disclosure occurs, but it can serve as a mediator when delayed LGBQ disclosure occurs. Impression Formation Psychologists have spent decades researching the ways in which people evaluate others, forming impressions based on initial and then increasing amounts of information. Fiske (1980) established the terms perceiver and target to identify, respectively, the person who forms the impression and the person about whom the impression is formed. Television viewers are perceivers, and the individuals they see on screens are targets. Whether meeting someone for the first time in person or seeing them on television for the first time, an individual forms a first impression. Their mind begins to receive and process information about this new acquaintance, and as they learn more about the other person, they integrate this new knowledge as part of creating “a unified impression of the person as a single unit” (Brewer, 1988, p. 2). Information about an individual’s identity becomes organized in social categories based on existing knowledge, “which include mental representations of social attributes and classes of social events, social roles, and social groups” (Brewer, 1988, p. 3). Perceivers can form an impression of a target based on visual assessments of physical 44 characteristics, on text-based or verbal descriptions of the target, and observation of behaviors and actions. These assessments are immediate during the initial ‘read’ on someone, and update with each new bit of information provided by or about the target: We look at a person and immediately a certain impression of his character forms itself in us. A glance, a few spoken words are sufficient to tell us a story about a highly complex matter. We know that such impressions form with remarkable rapidity and great ease. Subsequent observations may enrich or upset our first view. (Asch, 1946, p. 258) Social cognition studies show perceivers can infer information about a target in as little as one-tenth of a second, making judgments about traits such as trustworthiness (Willis & Todorov, 2006) and competence (Olivola & Todorov, 2010) from images of faces alone. Impressions begin to form immediately from physical appearance and are then further formed with speech and then more information. In audio-visual mediums such as television, viewers receive multiple stimuli; rather than just reading about or hearing a description of a target, they see and listen to a person on the screen—experiencing the individual as a direct communicator. After first categorizing targets in social categories associated with physical traits such as gender, race, and age, perceivers begin to consider non-visible traits such as personality, ideology, and behaviors (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Further observation, with the addition of dynamic actions such as physical movement and spoken word, can add to or detract from these first impressions. Mierke et al. (2011) noted that video clips allow for “charisma, cheerfulness, vivid and sympathetic mimics and gestures [to] compensate for whatever cues may cause initial negative stereotyping” (p. 54), as traits are conveyed and communicated in both verbal and non-verbal ways. Daft and Lengel’s (1986) Media Richness Theory contends audio-visual communication is more effective than text-based, whether the information comes directly from a person or is a description about them. Mierke et al. (2011) applied Media Richness Theory in a study that found perceivers are more confident in the impressions they have formed 45 of a target when multimedia is involved, and also concluded that perceivers form stronger positive impressions of a target when they see and hear from a target who is self-disclosing trait information than when they are limited to reading the same information about a target. Identification as LGBQ conveyed through media content requires either explicit verbal disclosure or some sort of implicit communication such as speech properties (Gaudio, 1994) or physical properties such as clothing or hairstyles associated with the gay community (Rule & Alaei (2016). This study involves audio-visual presentation, so it will allow perceivers to form impressions based on verbal and non-verbal traits. The specific trait of LGBQ identity will be communicated by the target, telling the perceiver that “this is a trait I want you to be aware of about me.” It is up to the perceiver to decide the significance of that information and how to incorporate it into the overall impression of the target. Collins and Miller’s (1994) meta-analysis of self-disclosure and liking found that perceivers tend to form more positive impressions of targets who self-disclose personal information and noted that such sharing can signal a target’s intent to cultivate a closer connection. This aligns with Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory, which contends that such disclosure is a key element in forming not just impressions but relationships. However, the timing of disclosure of particular information may be deemed inappropriate for reasons such as coming too early in the development of a relationship (Altman & Taylor, 1973), or if the information is “evaluated as inappropriate and a violation of social norms, especially if it occurs between strangers” (Collins & Miller, 1994, p. 459). A viewer may not wish to hear about an LGBQ newscaster’s sexual orientation (or anyone else’s) until after they’ve ‘gotten to know’ that individual. Perceivers who think LGBQ people are a violation of social norms and should not be visible may have negative responses to seeing an out person in any position of 46 prominence, including being on the local news. Asch (1946) explained that forming an impression is an organized process which requires the categorization and ranking of traits. There is not a standardized order in which particular traits are sorted and arranged, comparable to that of the “order of adjectives” in English grammar. Forsyth (2013) lists this order as: opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose, with the example of a “lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife.” Unlike such written descriptions, impression formation about individuals involves multiple traits which may fall into comparable categories of adjectives. The order in which an individual learns of various traits factors into the way they are prioritized, but the perceiver’s attitudes about particular qualities—including stereotypes they hold true about groups of people—also makes a difference in how they perceive a peer. For an example, Asch (1946) gave subjects the following sets of three adjectives with one adjective used in both sets, and as the first trait in each (p. 283): SET 1 SET 2 gay7 gay intelligent stupid industrious lazy Perceptions of an individual’s gaiety are shaped—and potentially reshaped—by the subsequent information about the individual’s intelligence and drive. The positive adjectives contribute to a positive assessment while the negative adjectives have the opposite effect, despite the initial impression made through the first trait being the same. The first set of traits available to a viewer on which to base an impression of a newscaster is the person’s appearance, including the physical attractiveness of facial features, the 7 Asch’s study in the 1940s was prior to a consistent definition of “gay” to mean “homosexual” in the 1950s (Hiskey, 2010), following its updated definition in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1951 (Redman, n.d.). 47 professionalism and polish that might be conveyed by neatness of hair, makeup, and clothing, and the expression on one’s face which might be smiling, serious, or solemn. Immediately after, a viewer gets to listen to the newscaster’s vocal qualities, assessing their speech for things such as tone and diction, as well as their manner of speaking. A person’s composure in the delivery of their lines, their cadence, and the absence (or presence) of ‘ums’ and stumbled-over words can convey their competence and proficiency as a speaker. Word choice and sentence construction can demonstrate intelligence and creativity, and a person’s intonation and inflection can show an interest in the subject matter and enthusiasm for telling their story. As viewers consume more of a newscaster’s work, they can begin to “get to know” them and identify other information about this TV personality that distinguishes the on-air talent from others they have seen—or matches what is traditionally expected in the role, conforming with the “newsman” type from early studies of broadcast news presenters (Sanders & Pritchett, 1971). Viewers should quickly determine whether or not they like a newscaster, and recognize the traits that they like. Rubin et al. (1985) noted that as a result of local newscasters having standardized roles, viewers can make assessments and form connections in a short period of time (p. 175). Asch (1946) provided the first explanation of a primacy effect, in which the earliest traits a perceiver identifies or discovers about a target form the foundation of an impression. These traits dominate the overall evaluation even as new traits or information become known. An example is “active, helpful, aggressive” and “lazy, unhelpful, aggressive,” in which the term “aggressive” takes on different meanings because of the other traits that preceded it (Asch, 1946). The first traits presented are typically assessed as central but may become peripheral traits if the perceiver determines more recently presented traits should be considered central. While the order in which traits are revealed affects the perception of that individual, different traits carry 48 different weight. The weights for a single trait possessed by multiple people may vary, due to the influence of other traits possessed singularly by those individuals. A trait held by one target may be perceived as central for them while the same trait held by another target may be considered peripheral in relation to other traits that target possesses. Anderson (1973) attributed primacy effects in impression formation to “attention decrement,” concluding that subjects pay less attention to new information provided about individuals; however, Dennis and Ahn (2001) cast doubt on such fatigue effects and argued for a “belief updating” process—while maintaining primacy effects due to presentation order. Unlike many descriptive traits, for example the ‘intelligent’ and ‘stupid’ from Asch’s (1946) study, sexual orientation is not a dimensional trait that can shift with the addition of more traits. A perceiver can receive new information that makes them think a target is not as intelligent or dumb as originally thought, but once a newscaster is identified as gay, their categorization cannot be changed. They are not going to be thought of as straight at any future time. Although the person could still “present” as straight—such as the “straight-acting” stereotype subgroup in a study by Clausell and Fiske (2005)—there is no going back in the closet. A viewer’s stereotypes and attitudes about gay people can shift, but their knowledge of a person being gay can’t change. Therefore, an understanding of these stereotypes and attitudes can be helpful in making predictions about how viewers will respond. LGBQ stereotypes are reviewed in detail in a later section. Winter and Uleman (1984) launched a significant expansion of impression formation theory through their findings that perceivers make assessments immediately and involuntarily in what they defined as ‘spontaneous trait inferences’ (STI). Uleman (2022) recently wrote that inference is a “very fuzzy term” ( p. 503) but the basic concept is that a perceiver identifies a 49 target’s trait without explicitly using particular wording. Unlike Asch’s (1946) studies, the perceiver is not given a list of specific facts about a target which they are to memorize—or process into a larger identity—but they make conclusions about an individual’s overall identity based on other traits. These typically involve cued trait words provided during an experiment to which participants either provide a description or respond to cued recall or recognition memory tasks (Moskowitz & Olcaysoy Okten, 2016). As one example, a perceiver who learns that “A professor has his new neighbors over for dinner” may recall that there was “a teacher” who hosted “a party” based on semantic cues, and they infer that this individual is “friendly” (Winter & Uleman, 1984, p. 241). Similarly, a “reporter [who] steps on his girlfriend’s feet as they foxtrot” provides semantic cues of “journalist” and “hurt feet,” while the perceiver infers that this person is “clumsy” (Winter & Uleman, 1984, p. 241). This employment of free association methods in which perceivers come up with descriptive words allows STI researchers to categorize and group terms that are similar yet not exact matches, rather than provide a trait word—implying on what a perceiver should focus—and asking perceivers to rate accordingly. Winter and Uleman (1984) proposed that impressions involve a spontaneous storage of information and inferences. There is a combination of “I know this” about a person and “I think this” about a person, with the latter involving both a conscious thought process and a subconscious belief and understanding. There are explicit evaluations, in which a perceiver makes “a direct association between a trait and an actor, which the perceiver is aware of and actively evaluates,” (Skowronski et al., 1993, p. 17). Explicit evaluations are self-reported judgments of which a perceiver is aware and which they have mentally validated, and are often the result of a “gut reaction” that Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2011) describe as occurring when “a negative affective reaction toward object X is transformed into propositional statements 50 such as ‘I dislike X’ or ‘X is bad’” (p. 62-63). There are also implicit evaluations, in which a perceiver subconsciously imposes traits onto a target, rather than the target explicitly revealing those traits to the perceiver (Moskowitz et al., 2022, p. 353). Implicit evaluations are involved with associations and are not deliberately judged for accuracy. De Houwer (2014) gives the example of an ice cream cone eliciting a smile in an implicit evaluation based on past experiences in which there is an association between ice cream and the word “good,” as opposed to an explicit evaluation of eating the ice cream and enjoying the taste. Rydell & McConnell (2006) found that counter-attitudinal traits can lead to explicit evaluations about an individual changing quickly, but implicit evaluations change slowly and can require dozens of additional pieces of information to confirm and reinforce the validity of the counter-attitudinal traits before the original impression is significantly altered. Perceivers can more quickly change their self-reported judgments about a particular target than they can change their subconscious attitudes about and associations involving particular traits or target groups. These evaluations exist simultaneously and are separately subject to change with the revelation—and imposition—of new traits. Not all of these are stored in memory, as Winter and Uleman (1984) noted that some of a target’s behaviors and traits get subconsciously ignored or discarded as an impression updates. Updating Impressions – Addition-Based Model Impressions are subject to change as traits are combined together, but a perceiver’s overall impression of a target can differ depending on when they receive information about a particular trait. Someone who first learns of a negative trait followed by three positive traits may have a different opinion of a person than someone who learns the three positive traits first. Asch (1946) and other early impression formation scholars in the 1960s and 1970s including Norman 51 Anderson, Alfred Barrios, and Ann Jacobson tried to determine the effects of the order of information on perception. While primacy effects are due to information presented early, the concept of recency effects suggests that the newest information—presented late or most recently—dominates perceptions and takes precedence over earlier information. Anderson and Barrios (1961) noted that “studies in communication research have reached no consensus as to the effect of order of presentation. The pro-con vs. con-pro paradigm leads sometimes to primacy effects (greater effect of the first communication) and sometimes to recency effects” (p. 346). More than sixty years later, there is still no consensus as to information order, with some studies arguing that information presented early dominates due to primacy effects while others hold that information presented late dominates due to recency effects. Early approaches were mathematical, including attempts to add positive and subtract negative scores to determine an overall score (Anderson, 1965) and to average individual scores into an overall score (Anderson, 1965; Anderson & Jacobson, 1965). Weissbach and Zagon (1975) concluded that the effects of homosexual identification on impressions should fit within an additive model. The addition-subtraction and averaging methods are both addition-based models of forming and updating impressions, due to their introduction of new information with no information lost or removed (Moskowitz et al., 2022). Newer traits that provide contradictory information can counteract initial impressions, but traits introduced earlier are still recognized as present rather than being replaced entirely. A perceiver can update their memory of a target based on an initial impression or a later inference—and switch back and forth as additional information aligning with particular traits becomes more salient. A viewer who develops a favorable opinion of a newscaster may disapprove of the same individual when they learn that person is gay. If the viewer has homonegative views, they may 52 perceive the gay target as less likable. There could be a response along the lines of, “I was okay with them until I found out they were gay, but now I’m not so sure. They should keep it to themselves. This is bad for our kids to see or know.” The same viewer, however, may also see more reporting from the gay individual and realize that the sexual orientation is not a dominant trait. Credibility, composure, professionalism, journalistic integrity, and other traits may trump the categorical information involving sexual orientation. The addition of traits such as showing compassion for interview subjects or seeking accountability from wrongdoers may become more salient than sexual orientation in the evaluation of a journalist’s credibility or likability. The averaging of scores models initially assigned equal weight to various traits and had mixed results (Anderson, 1965, 1968, 1974). In tandem with impression formation theory, Sherif and Sherif’s (1967) social judgment theory found that typical assessments of others tended to skew more positive than a true neutral; that is, on scales from -7 to 7, the average perception rates higher than 0. As a result of a ‘neutral’ starting point above 0—using 2 for example—the addition of an extremely positive trait that the perceiver would rate at 7 has the relative weight of 5, while an extremely negative trait the perceiver would rate at -7 has the relative weight of -9. This greater weight creates a negativity bias (Skowronski & Carlton, 1989) for particular traits which can supersede the order of their presentation. Such traits are often linked to stereotypes a perceiver holds about particular groups, in which a target’s membership could activate an overwhelmingly negative response. Additionally, Baumeister et al. (2001) found negative impressions form more quickly than positive impressions and are more resistant to change, particularly to contradiction and repudiation based on overwhelmingly positive information. A single negative trait about a target that a perceiver finds especially significant can reverse an overall positive impression—formed based on dozens of previous positive traits—to an overall 53 negative impression (Cone & Ferguson, 2015). A viewer who forms a negative impression of a gay newscaster due to the newscaster’s sexual orientation may make that assessment quickly, faster than a viewer who is forming a positive-leaning impression of a newscaster whose orientation is not known. If the negative impression forms during the primacy stages, there may be little hope of an improved favorable impression of the newscaster despite the quality of their future performance. The negatively perceived trait of LGBQ identity may hold substantial weight from the beginning and be less subject to changing even as positive traits are added later. Fiske (1980) noted that the novelty of a trait plays a role in the assignment of weight. An individual who possesses a novel trait may stand out more from others due to deviation from normativity, and if such a trait is revealed late, it may receive more attention and require more time to process, creating a recency bias (Fiske, 1980). Skowronski & Carlton (1989) argued that the traits which receive weights toward an extreme—particularly negative ones—are those perceived as non-normative, and found negative traits had a tendency to outweigh positive traits. Some viewers may view ‘gay’ as a novel trait, such as those who do not know or encounter gay people on any sort of regular basis, as well as those who consume media content with few to no gay people in it. They may not have experience watching news with openly gay newscasters, either because they don’t watch—or don’t know they’re watching—newscasters who are gay. That sort of media consumption can lead to a gay newscaster standing out significantly, simply because of the absence of others. Audience members may know Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow are gay while not knowing about Shepard Smith or Steve Kornacki, and their local news stations may not have had an out newscaster on air before. If exposure to direct disclosure by a newscaster is a first-time occurrence for a viewer, the viewer may focus more on that 54 moment and the specific trait no matter when disclosure occurs. Langer and Imber (1980) found that identifying a target as being different from most people—such as being gay, having cancer, or a multi-millionaire—resulted in perceivers remembering more about other features. A perceiver’s “mindfulness” about the additional trait led to giving more attention to everything else about the person that is revealed after. This suggests that a viewer might pay closer attention to a gay newscaster’s future performance and work product if they distinguish the newscaster as being different from their straight peers. A person’s sexual orientation should have no negative impact on their abilities as a newscaster and could potentially have a positive impact. LGBQ individuals are typically more familiar with LGBQ issues and may potentially do a better job of reporting on those specific topics as a result (Anderson-Minshall, 2020; Patton, 2022; Soller, 2018). However, negative attitudes about LGBQ people may result in a diminished impression of an LGBQ newscaster’s abilities. In cases of unfavorable attitudes toward homosexuals, the negativity may not be because of a specific stereotype about gay men—such as being effeminate or flamboyant—that is comparable to stereotypes of Black men as dangerous or that Hispanic people are in the country illegally to take away jobs. While some individuals have unfounded fears that exposure to gay people will result in more gay children (Rosky, 2013), what has traditionally been termed homophobia is often more accurately homonegativity or anti-gay sentiment (Beaujon, 2012). Sherman (2015) argued for the term “gaycism,” although it has shortcomings as a “a suitable catch-all for anti-LGBTQ bigotry” (para. 15). Those who dislike LGBQ people may not have specific reasons for their disdain beyond thinking “homosexuality is immoral, and these people are deviant.” They may not even consider why they have these views, beyond being taught to think that way by members of their in-group. Even people who support marriage equality and 55 equal treatment for LGBQ people across the board have lived in a society that still stigmatizes non-heteronormative identity and may still carry some unintended biases. Thus, the first prediction in this study is: H1: Viewers will rate an LGBQ newscaster who does not disclose his sexual orientation higher in credibility and likability than an LGBQ newscaster who discloses. Resistance to Changing/Reversing Impressions Although it is possible for perceivers to update their impressions of targets, first impressions are resistant to change for a variety of reasons, predominantly because of “the ease and efficiency of relying on what is already known” (Moskowitz et al., 2022, p. 352). Once a perceiver passes judgment, it will typically take something of special significance to change their decision. This argument supports Asch’s (1946) explanation of primacy effects. The brain simplifies things for cognitive processing, generally sticking with what it has already learned, and either ignoring incongruous information or modifying it to meld with existing memory. Levels of favorability may increase and decrease slightly with revelations or additions of a new trait, but there is unlikely to be an overall reversal from positive to negative or vice versa—diminishing the strength of recency effects. The uncommon occasions in which evaluations flip are when the contradictory information is what Cone and Ferguson (2015) refer to as “highly diagnostic” and reveal something about a target’s “true nature” that was previously unknown (p. 37). What constitutes “highly diagnostic” can vary based on the perceiver and the particular attitudes and stereotypes they possess. People can have “highly diagnostic” views about LGBQ people, and these could be very positive or very negative. A positive view could be that a person is excited to see people who have traditionally been invisible for various reasons, and appreciate the inclusivity, diversity, and 56 representation on display at a particular news station. A negative view could be that a person does not want to see gay people in public, “flaunting their sexuality” (Anderson, 2009), especially someone in a position of power or success. They consider LGBQ people to be deviants and do not want children exposed to what they view as a “deviant lifestyle,” or some other negative association. Stereotypes play a key role in implicit impression formation as they provide category-level information about group membership rather than differentiating information about individual identity (Gawronski et al., 2003). Stereotypes make mental processing easier and more efficient (Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Stereotyping shifts a perceiver’s explicit and implicit attention from unguided observation of behaviors to somewhat-guided observation for expected behaviors (Chen et al., 2022). The focus becomes less about actions and more about expected actions, and how outcomes align with expectations. Once a stereotype becomes activated in a perceiver’s mind, it then anchors that person’s perceptions of a target as they become primed to see elements of the group stereotype in the behaviors of the individual (Moskowitz & Olcaysoy Okten, 2016). Without the activation of a stereotype, a perceiver is not guided to apply that stereotype in their inferences. Therefore, the timing of the knowledge of—and activation of—a stereotype affects impression formation, due to primacy effects. The identification of a target’s membership in a group of whom a perceiver holds a stereotypical view does not mandate that the perceiver has to stereotype the target, as “stereotype activation does not inevitably lead to stereotype application” (Chaney et al., 2022, p. 436). This means that if a perceiver forms an impression of a target prior to the revelation of a stereotyped trait, the stereotype may not be applied. If a stereotype is activated early and a target’s traits are inconsistent with the stereotype, a perceiver can do one of three things: apply the stereotype and 57 deny the trait despite the evidence, reshape the stereotype to fit the target and the evidenced trait, or deny the stereotype. Consider the example of a perceiver who typically stereotypes gay men as effeminate and must assess a gay man who does not display or convey feminine traits—and whose previous traits have not been indicative of any other gay stereotypes. In the first scenario, the perceiver might apply the stereotype and view the target as effeminate, ignoring his masculinity, even though his traits indicate otherwise. In the second situation, the perceiver might subtype the target as being a deviation from the expected feminine stereotype, while still believing that gay men are feminine but that this particular target is not as feminine as most. In the third, the perceiver may dismiss the feminine stereotype entirely. However, this does not mean that the perceiver has learned or been trained to rid their attitudes of the stereotype and may still apply it to other gay men in the future. Crocker et al. (1983) found the outcome will likely depend on how strongly held the particular stereotype is. Perceivers who possess strong attitudes about a group may ignore a target’s traits that are inconsistent with their beliefs about the group rather than recognize the individuating information. This is especially likely when the stereotypical views are highly negative, resulting in a perceiver ignoring a target’s positive traits. However, Moskowitz et al. (2022) noted that ignoring inconsistent traits does not constitute updating an impression which—along with the stereotype—remains intact as the newer information gets discarded. For less strongly held stereotypes, a perceiver may mentally create a new subgroup for the individual target to allow for an exception to the stereotype when the target’s traits and behavior are inconsistent from the stereotype of a particular group to which they belong, rather than the perceiver changing their views about the group stereotype (Weber & Crocker, 1983; 58 Kunda & Oleson, 1995). This allows a perceiver to have favorable views about an individual target who belongs to a group and still hold negative views about the group. It involves individuating a target as different from the majority of their group—this may be a subconscious solution for cognitive dissonance. Delayed activation of stereotypes allows for reinterpretation of earlier traits as category-level and individual-level information must now compete (Kurdi & Banaji, 2022). In these cases, the strength of a stereotype and a perceiver’s attitudes about it can moderate primacy and recency effects, enhancing one and diminishing the other. Hamilton and Thurston (2022) found that the majority of spontaneous trait inference studies present perceivers with a single trait-implying behavior about the target at a time, in order to limit multiple traits from interacting to influence the overall perception, which would make it difficult to determine which of the traits directly altered the impression. In essence, this allows for the introduction and perception of a single trait at a time, followed by the measurement of the effects of the addition of that trait. Kunda (1999) emphasized that behavioral traits can be observed before a perceiver categorizes a target’s group membership, but this usually requires group membership to be revealed later. This is applicable to LGBQ persons, whose distinguishing categorical identity is covert. Their behavior can be noticed and processed first, before their group membership is revealed. Wigboldus et al. (2003) broke from the bulk of research by trying to determine whether a person’s categorical identification gets noticed first, or the behavior they demonstrate. They incorporated stereotypes into a behavioral study so that perceivers received two traits to infer: first, a categorical trait associated with a stereotype from group membership such as “Boy Scout” or “punk,” and a second from a trait-implying behavior such as “helps the handicapped person” (p. 473). The stereotype always came before the behavior, to replicate the real-world 59 categorizations perceivers make automatically based on “salient features such as gender and skin color” (Wigboldus et al., 2003, p. 481) before observing a target’s actions. When there was a conflict between the two, such that the stereotype and the behavior were inconsistent, the stereotype took precedence over the behavior. Negative perceiver attitudes about group stereotypes overruled positive perceptions about actions. The findings lasted beyond initial assessments, as stereotypes inhibited further inferences from the introduction of additional traits which were inconsistent with the stereotype (Wigboldus et al., 2003). Conversely, Hamilton and Thurston (2022) interpreted these results to argue that it might be possible for behavior to overrule and even prevent stereotyping, so that if perceivers learn about a behavior before learning about group membership, “STI should occur when the behavior is encoded, prior to activation of the stereotype” (p. 243). Questions about or challenges to an LGBQ newscaster’s credibility and likability—their competence and warmth—should not occur without disclosure as LGBQ stereotypes and attitudes will not be activated until disclosure occurs. Thus, the next prediction in this study is: H2: Credibility and likability ratings of LGBQ newscasters will be significantly more favorable for those who delay disclosure than for those who disclose early, as primacy effects of traits observed in the early stages will be dominant. LGBQ Stigma and Responses to Disclosure Despite more than a half-century of research involving perceptions of LGBQ people, Hicks (2020) claimed that empirical studies remain limited, especially with regard to the implications of these stereotypes. Scholars know that some people have negative attitudes toward LGBQ individuals, and there are countless incidents of antagonism resulting from this prejudice. However, there is much to be studied to move beyond educated guesses and logical assumptions 60 in order to obtain confirmation for the effects of biases and bigotry. Stereotypes of gay people are mostly limited to behaviors and activities in their personal lives, not professional traits or characteristics. It is not so much a matter of not being able to do a job; rather, some people are prejudiced and don’t want to encounter, deal with, or be viewed as supporting gay people. LGBQ people have long been stigmatized, and Goffman’s (1963) foundational stigma theory described homosexual identity as a trait that may be perceived as “unnatural” or a character flaw. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) classified homosexuality as a mental illness until the seventh printing of the DSM-II in 1974 (De Block & Adiaens, 2013). Some people and cultures continue to view homosexuality as a choice rather than an inherent trait (Malory, 2012). Only 49% of Americans believe gay and lesbian people are born that way, with an additional 11% who say LGBQ identity results from a mix of nature and nurture (McCarthy, 2019). Among both those who view homosexuality as a choice as well as those who see it as an innate trait, there are people who believe it is wrong and hold negative stereotypes and attitudes about LGBQ people. LGBQ identity is one of the covert, concealable stigmas Goffman (1963) called “discreditable,” in contrast with overt, visually conspicuous stigmas such as race (non-White), gender (non-male), or a physically disability, which he termed “discredited.” Sexual orientation is covert as its invisibility requires communication to confirm its status, and “LGB people are in the somewhat unusual position of being able to decide in many cases whether and when to disclose their stigmatized status” (Buck & Plant, 2011, p. 340). Disclosure of a covert stigma can carry risks. Not only has non-heterosexual identity traditionally been stigmatized, people have been discouraged from making themselves visible, with negative repercussions to discredit people who disclose. Hebl and Skorinko (2005) noted an early recognition of a stigma allows a 61 target to then show how they differ from stereotypes held about people with that stigma. LGBQ people who disclose early can give others the opportunity to see all of the ways they do not match existing stereotypes. Newscasters who disclose early can demonstrate that they are just like straight newscasters in their professionalism and other job-related proficiencies. Early impression formation research consistently found late disclosure of covert stigma was advantageous (Jones & Gordon, 1972; Peters & Terborg, 1975), which suggests that LGBQ newscasters would want their audiences to get to know them first before revealing this covert stigma. Research specifically focused on impression formation and perceptions of targets in response to learning the target’s sexual orientation have had mixed results. Golebiowska (2003) and King et al. (2008) found that delayed disclosure resulted in more positive responses; people who developed a connection with an individual first and later learned that individual was gay had better overall impressions. MacInnis and Hodson (2014) and Dane et al. (2015) found early disclosure resulted in more positive responses. Participant gender has been a factor, but its effect has also resulted in mixed results. Buck and Plant (2011) found male subjects had more positive responses to delayed disclosure while women gave similar responses for the early and delayed scenarios. Gross et al. (1980) found disclosures of homosexuality received negative responses from people with prejudice against gay individuals no matter when the disclosure took place, but later disclosure received more negative responses from men, which was attributed to having less time to adjust to the new information; early disclosure allowed more time to process and add new information and traits to the sexual orientation (Gross et al., 1980). MacInnis & Hodgson (2015) also concluded recency effects can be strong in response to LGBQ disclosure due to insufficient time to fully process the new information. However, this allowance of more time and additional information can only occur if a perceiver does not decide to reject and avoid the gay individual. 62 Recency effects in response to LGBQ disclosure have also been stronger among perceivers with negative views about the recent information (King et al., 2008; Golebiowska, 2003). Dane et al. (2015) agreed that information conveyed early often dominates overall impression formation but found delayed disclosure to be disadvantageous as the “recency effect” had negative results: subjects who received a late disclosure “were more likely to negatively embellish information related to sexual orientation” while those who received early disclosure had “a reduced tendency to focus on… sexuality as a defining feature” (p. 1). These findings ran contrary to those of Buck and Plant (2011), who found sexual orientation trait carried less weight when revealed late, due to the primacy effects of the earlier information. Recently presented traits, including sexual orientation, do not trump the traits presented earlier during the primacy phase. Buck and Plant (2011) argued that audience members who learn about an individual’s sexual orientation early will use it as an important trait when forming an impression, and this element of the person’s identity will influence the processing of all further information acquired about the person. This is true whether or not the audience member has any bias against LGBQ people, but prejudice will hold additional sway. Subjects who form an impression of an LGBQ individual without knowledge of sexual orientation will be less likely to avoid further interactions with that person—conversely more likely to engage in future interactions—as they have not been ‘primed’ to anticipate negativity due to stigma (Buck & Plant, 2011). A weakness of most of the studies about the timing of same-sex disclosure is that they have not involved a discloser directly sharing their sexual orientation with the research subjects. These experiments had participants watch a person disclose to an interviewer (Buck & Plant, 2011), read a biographical profile (Golebiowska, 2003; MacInnis & Hodson, 2014), read a questionnaire (Gross et al., 1980), or imagine someone disclosing to them (King et al., 2008). 63 Dane et al. (2015) wanted direct disclosure and conducted a series of experiments in which participants encountered a gay person who typically posed as another participant in the study. In the first experiment, participants learned about their partner while in separate rooms before coming together to meet in-person; those who experienced early disclosure felt closer to their gay partner than those who learned about the partner’s sexuality later in their encounter (Dane et al., 2015). In the study’s other associated experiments, subjects participated in video interviews, giving answers about themselves and watching answers from a gay partner. Test subjects liked their confederates more during the early disclosure scenario. LGBQ Stereotypes and Attitudes, Historically and Today Viewers know what “gay” is, as far as same-sex attraction, but personal stereotypes and attitudes about gay people and whether these are positive or negative can have wide variances. Gay identification can activate the inference of other associated traits such as masculinity or effeminacy, deviance, immorality, friendliness, warmth, confidence, or pride. Approval or disapproval of gay people can result in perceptions of other positive or negative traits, and these inferences may be made without direct evidence as stereotypes are applied. A gay newscaster could be perceived as less competent or credible if an audience member thinks less of gay people overall than of straight people. In what may be the earliest impression formation study about the effects of homosexual group membership, Weissbach and Zagon (1975) asked perceivers to issue impression ratings for gay targets across “five scales … believed a priori to be sensitive to homosexual-nonhomosexual differences,” such as “strong-weak” and “masculine-feminine” (p. 265). The researchers found that knowledge of a target’s gay identity resulted in perceivers shifting their ratings toward the “homosexual end” of all five of the bipolar rating scales. This demonstration that gay identity affected “ratings across a wide range of related dimensions … in 64 a linear manner” (Weissbach & Zagon, 1975, p. 266) indicates that evaluation categories of other traits should see a similar, uniformly directional shift as a result of LGBQ attitudes. Perceptions of positive traits may decrease consistently simply due to negative thoughts about LGBQ people. Simmons’s (1965) early research into “deviants” discovered that “homosexuals” were the most frequently identified group, with 49% of those surveyed providing that answer to a prompt to “list those things or types of persons whom you regard as deviant” (p. 224). This finding—that about half of all respondents held such a negative impression of gay men that they named the group in response to an unfavorable descriptor rather than providing an unfavorable descriptor in response to the name of the group—demonstrates the overall animus that gay people have had to endure. Less than half as many respondents identified “murderers” (22%) and less than a fourth said “perverts” (12%); 13% of respondents identified “lesbians” as deviants. In follow-up questioning that provided a list of 70 potential traits, the “word portrait” for “homosexual” was “almost unequivocally negative” (Simmons, 1965, p. 228). Fifteen of the 18 traits identified by at least 10% of the participants were unmistakably negative; the other three—"effeminate,” “sensitive,” and “sensual”—were ambiguous but potentially neutral (Simmons, 1965, p. 227). The identification of “effeminate” as a main stereotype of gay men has been supported and reconfirmed for decades (e.g., Blashill & Powlishta, 2009a; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997; Mohr et al., 2013; Staats, 1978; Weissbach & Zagon, 1975), and is a view that continues to be held today (Gulevich et al., 2023). Masculine men are viewed more favorably overall than feminine men, whether they are gay (Sink et al., 2018) or straight (Glick et al., 2015). Kite and Deaux’s (1987) inversion theory explained that gay males are perceived as possessing traits comparable to straight women, and lesbians are similarly stereotyped as being more like men. This assigns conformity to traditional gender roles and their associated stereotypes but flips them 65 based on sexual orientation. Gay men stereotyped as “effeminate” are also frequently perceived as possessing other characteristics associated with feminine stereotypes, such as sensitivity (Madon, 1997; Sink et al., 2018; Staats, 1978), weakness (Weissbach & Zabon, 1975), daintiness (Madon, 1997), and feminine physical mannerisms (Kite & Deaux, 1987). Madon (1997) expanded the inversion theory idea through a study of stereotype content that identified two general subtypes of gay men: they possess some female qualities such as “warmhearted” and “compassionate” (p. 678), which are viewed positively, but they also “violate acceptable male gender roles” (p. 663). MacDonald et al. (1973) concluded the prejudice against gay people was attributable to opposition to gender-role inversion. As research into attitudes about gay people grew in response to and in conjunction with the gay liberation movement (e.g. Glenn & Weaver, 1979; Irwin & Thompson, 1977; Loftus, 2001), scholars identified deviation from traditional gender roles as being a major factor in negative attitudes toward gay people (e.g., Herek, 1984, 1988; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Larsen et al., 1980). However, Blashill and Powlishta (2009b) said even when negative attitudes toward LGBQ individuals are attributed to perceived violations of gender roles, it is not the sole factor for homonegativity. Masculine targets who conform to straight male stereotypes will still receive negative ratings from some, as the label “gay” alone triggers disapproval due to sexual prejudice. Without directly connecting to Madon’s (1997) “warmhearted” stereotype, Fiske et al. (2002) established a Stereotype Content Model, which plots impressions and perceptions of groups onto a two-dimensional grid with the overall categories of warmth and competence serving as the axes. Warmth is about feelings of goodwill, and includes characteristics such as likability and trustworthiness, while competence is about a person’s abilities, and includes values such as intelligence and skills. The four quadrants are high warmth-high competence, high 66 warmth-low competence, low warmth-high competence, and low warmth-low competence. Perceivers assess a target’s membership in either the perceiver’s in-group or an out-group, with members of dominant in-groups rating themselves highly on each of the dimensions while rating out-group members lower (Fiske et al., 2002). Asbrock (2010) noted that the only people stereotyped with high scores for both warmth and competence are those who are admired and whom others aspire to be, while members of out-groups are typically viewed as being either warm or competent, but not both, and sometimes neither. Fiske et al’s (2002) initial study of 24 groups found that although gay men were stereotyped as slightly higher on the warmth scale than they were on competence, both scores were near the middle. Gay men were one of a few groups that did not fit into any of the expected quadrants, which the researchers concluded was due to multiple conflicting stereotypes that neutralized each other. These types of inconsistent responses date back decades, beginning with Staats’s (1978) study which found frequently appearing traits that had significant correlations for gay stereotypes included both “suspicious” and “honest,” along with “stupid” and “ignorant” as well as “intelligent” (p. 20-21). These traits associated with warmth and competence had great variance among respondents. Perceivers with different attitudes about gay people apply different stereotypes, and those with negative attitudes tend to be uniform with the negative gay stereotypes they possess and apply (Simmons, 1965). Several follow up studies have built upon the Stereotype Content Model by focusing on stereotypes of gay people in comparison to straight people, specifically looking at assessments of warmth and competence. There have been mixed results. Fiske et al.’s (2002) study found gay men rated higher in warmth than men overall, but significantly lower in competence than men and significantly lower in warmth than women, while also slightly lower in competence than women. Several other studies have also found that gay men are regularly stereotyped as less 67 competent and intelligent than straight men (Asbrock, 2010; Clausell & Fiske, 2005; Mize & Manago, 2018; Sink et al., 2018), but Burke and LaFrance (2016) found competence and intelligence were more frequently occurring stereotypes for gay individuals—both and male and female—than for their straight counterparts. Mohr et al. (2013) also identified “intelligent and insightful” as a stereotype more common for gay men than straight. Masculine gay men are seen as more competent than effeminate gay men (Sink et al., 2018), but still less competent than straight men. Mize and Manago (2018) found lesbians and straight women are stereotyped as being about equal in competence categories, but straight woman rate higher in warmth. Gay men receive higher ratings of warmth than straight men (Asbrock, 2010; Clausell & Fiske, 2005; Mize & Manago, 2018), specifically as being more friendly (Burke & LaFrance, 2016) and more trustworthy (Asbrock, 2010; Burke & LaFrance, 2016). In addition to negative views regarding effeminacy, other negative stereotypes that align with negative attitudes toward gay men include immorality (Belous et al., 2015; Mize & Manago, 2018; Rich, 1980; Simmons, 1965), which is sometimes associated with a promiscuity stereotype (e.g. Herek, 1984; Pinsof & Haselton, 2017), and insecurity (Herek, 1984; Staats, 1978). Clausell and Fiske (2005) identified 10 gay male subgroups including flamboyant, feminine, and artistic. The two subgroups associated more with straight men, “hyper-masculine” and “straight acting,” received the highest competence ratings along with low warmth ratings similar to perceptions of heterosexual men. Therefore, gay newscasters who come across as more effeminate will likely be judged as lower in competence and intelligence, but possibly higher in warmth and likability—provided the perceiver is not prejudiced against or does not have negative attitudes toward gay people. Mohr et al. (2013)’s survey of 112 of psychotherapists found 14 different categories of 68 stereotypes associated with sexual orientation, with just one receiving the endorsement of at least one-third of the participants as accurate for gay men: “female gender role attributes” (62.5%). Only two other categories, “entertaining” (25.0%) and “intelligent and insightful” (31.3%), “were endorsed more often than would be expected if sexual orientation were unrelated to endorsement” (Mohr et al., 2013, p.47). These assessments are from mental health professionals rather than the general population and show that even people with specialized training in mental and biological issues can carry stereotypes and biases. However, these findings are improvement from decades earlier when therapists frequently regarded homosexuality as undesirable (Davison, 1976). As psychologists and therapists have evolved in their understandings of and attitudes about gay people, so too has the overall population. McCormack (2012) argued that homophobia is becoming less significant. The 2015 United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage legal across the country, and the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act codified the ruling into federal law. Support for same-sex marriage in the United States rose from just 50% in 2012 to an all-time high of 71% one decade later (Gallup, n.d.-b), and it remains at that level today (McCarthy, 2023). Nearly four-fifths (79%) said they are either satisfied with the acceptance of gays in the country or hope for even greater acceptance (Gallup, n.d.-b), and 80% say the U.S. is a good place to live for gay people (McCarthy, 2022). However, the percentage of Americans who said that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable dropped from 71% in 2022 to 64% in 2023—with approval among Republicans dropping from 56% to 41%—the biggest single-year change since Gallup polling began asking the question in 2001 (J. Jones, 2023). Coffman et al. (2017) found anti-gay sentiment is substantially underestimated; rates of LGBQ acceptance are “overstated because of a growing social 69 desirability bias to report positive attitudes about [LGBQ] issues” (Doan & Mize, 2020, p. 508). This research takes place at a time when the conflict between supporters and opponents of sexual and gender minorities is again a hot-button issue; Pew (2024) identified gender identity and sexual orientation as one of several cultural issues “likely to be focal points in the campaign” leading up to the 2024 presidential election (para. 5). During the 2024 legislative session, there were more than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills sponsored by state legislators (ACLU, 2024). Discourse about and tied to these actions stoke intense opinions from both sides. LGBTQ+ support from individuals and businesses continues to grow despite vocal political opposition (Shortall, 2019), and polling shows about 1 in every 18 Americans now identifies as LGBTQ+ (Jones, 2021). Even with greater acceptance overall, there are religious, political, and cultural values and beliefs that maintain homophobia and homonegativity at individual and social levels. Only about half of Americans believe that people are born gay, while about one-third believe people “become gay as a result of their environment or upbringing,” (McCarthy, 2019, para. 3). Tens of millions of Americans continue to disapprove of same-sex relationships. Ventriglio et al. (2021) aptly described homophobia as “a scourge in the modern era” (p. 1), as prejudiced individuals espouse their bigotry toward LGBT individuals and the overall gay community. Predictors for disapproving attitudes toward LGBQ individuals include religion (e.g., Bettinsoli et al., 2020; Herek, 1984; Ventriglio et al., 2021), political ideological leaning toward authoritarianism (Goodnight et al., 2014; Haddock et al., 1993; Herek, 1984), sexist attitudes (Davies, 2004), and perceiver gender, as men hold more negative views towards gay men than women do (Brown & Amoroso, 1975; Davies, 2004; Herek, 1988, 2002; Kite et al., 2021). LGBQ Attitudes and Impression Formation The stigma of LGBQ identity and the related stereotypes and attitudes possessed by 70 perceivers should be a moderator in responses to timing of LGBQ disclosure. Corresponding with Fiske’s (1980) findings that the novelty of a trait plays a role in how much weight it gets in the overall impression, viewers unaccustomed to LGBQ visibility—and those lacking relationships with LGBQ individuals—may view a gay newscaster as novel. This can require more attention and processing time, creating a recency bias when revealed late. As long as LGBQ identity is perceived as non-normative, as a trait it will receive more weight, but as LGBQ identity becomes more normalized, its novelty factor will decrease. Until then, if someone has especially negative views of LGBQ people, the recency effect will likely overtake primacy (Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). Golebiowska (2003) found recency effects were stronger when the traits were strongly disliked; if a group was disliked some, but not a ton, then recency effects were weaker. Thus, stronger recency effects are more likely to be applicable to perceivers who have strong negative views of LGBQ individuals. There may be a small decrease in scores for an LGBQ newscaster who delays disclosure to viewers with somewhat negative attitudes, but the early positive impression formed during primacy should take precedence. Recency effects among viewers with strong negative attitudes are more likely to result in a drastic decrease in scores. In a study involving impression formation about a newscaster, the target’s presentation of the news report is their primary behavior, conveying such traits as credibility, trustworthiness, and likability. The addition of LGBQ identity follows the Wigboldus et al. (2003; 2004) studies with the introduction of stereotyping by a perceiver. When a gay newscaster’s identity as LGBQ becomes known, that target does not begin to conform to gay stereotypes. Instead, the perceiver imposes gay stereotypes onto the target, applying such attitudes to their earlier and ongoing impressions of the newscaster’s traits. For viewers who have negative stereotypes and attitudes 71 about LGBQ people, early disclosure means the negatively perceived trait is predominant and subject to primacy effects. Delayed disclosure means the impression/connection that forms is based on other traits identified as predominant during the primacy stage, so there is less time for a stereotype to form, and the target can receive more favorable attitudes and acceptance because sexual orientation is not yet known. If LGBQ identity remains unknown, a perceiver cannot impose such stereotypes and will have no expectation of the newscaster to conform to them. Negative attitudes about or toward gay people should therefore be a non-factor in the impression. This predicts that viewers with negative attitudes toward gay people will give higher favorability ratings than viewers with positive attitudes toward gay people to the newscaster who does not disclose than the newscaster who discloses early or late, even though it’s the same person doing the same reports. A perceiver who holds negative stereotypes or attitudes about gay people and receives late disclosure will have had time to develop a greater connection to a target person based on the target’s other traits. Thus, mild attitudes of homonegativity might cause only a small drop to an established positive rating slightly based on the delayed disclosure, as positive views established during primacy have greater weight. Viewers with extreme homonegative attitudes could immediately balk at their previous assessment, leading their ratings to plummet. Viewers with negative attitudes who find out early and develop immediate negative assessments of the newscaster could maintain this negative impression over the continued duration, as the negative views during primacy have greater weight. In all cases, people who hold strong negative views will drop their ratings more than people who don’t hold strong negative views. Based on what is known about maintaining and updating impressions as well as stereotype application, LGBQ stereotypes and attitudes will moderate timing of disclosure, I propose the following hypotheses 72 and research questions. H3 concerns all newscasters who disclose they are LGBQ, regardless of whether the disclosure is early or delayed. H4 predicts distinct effects based on the timing of disclosure: H3: Pre-existing LGBQ attitudes will moderate ratings of credibility and likability of an LGBQ newscaster who discloses. This hypothesis expects that those with negative pre-existing attitudes will rate newscasters who disclose, regardless of the timing, less favorably because of their biases. H4: People with negative LGBQ attitudes will rate a newscaster who discloses early less favorably for credibility and likability than when disclosure is delayed. RQ1: Will overall favorability ratings from people with positive LGBQ attitudes differ between the early and delayed disclosure conditions, and if so, how? This study asks this research question because some people may be happy with the visibility but others—even though they are allies—may subconsciously have a slightly negative reaction, due to traditional societal attitudes and a kneejerk or gut reaction to respond adversely to difference. Our culture is becoming more accepting and tolerant, with many consciously trying to be better, but it is an ongoing process that takes time and requires deliberately engaging in inclusion. This study measures perceptions of a target multiple times, which Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) called step-by-step processing. While the previous questions involve the average of evaluations issued by perceivers about a target across multiple video encounters, to identify changes in impression over time, this study asks the following research questions: RQ2: Will impressions of credibility and likability change significantly between the first impression and the fourth impression? RQ3: Will impressions of credibility and likability change significantly between the 73 third impression and the fourth impression? RQ4: If RQ2 and RQ3 find differences, do these vary depending on LGBQ attitudes? These questions are another way to analyze potential primacy and recency effects by looking at the responses immediately following exposure to disclosure. Research Design and Methods To examine the proposed cause-and-effect questions and interactions, this study used a 2 (disclosure: yes/no) x 2 (time of disclosure: early/delayed) between-subjects design. The no disclosure condition serves as the control group (see Table 1). Table 1. Design Table Timing Disclosure Yes No Early Early Disclosure No Disclosure Late Delayed Disclosure This study used a factorial design with four news stories from a newscaster who is gay. Viewers in the early condition saw the newscaster disclose in a story shown first; viewers in the delayed condition saw that story fourth. The control group did not see the newscaster disclose in any of the stories. Control participants instead viewed a similar version of the story used for the disclosure treatment, but without the newscaster self-identifying as LGBQ. The moderator is pre-existing LGBQ attitudes (positive/negative). See moderation models in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1. Conceptual Moderation Model of LGBQ attitudes on Disclosure Disclosure Yes/No Pre-existing LGBQ attitudes Liking Credibility 74 Figure 2. Conceptual Moderation Model of LGBQ attitudes on Timing Sample When resources are limited, it can be efficient for control groups to have fewer participants, although scholars are discouraged from allocating less than 20% of the sample to the control group to avoid compromising statistical power (Bausell, 1994; White, 2018). A G*Power analysis—based on Rosenthal-von der Pütten et. al’s (2013) medium effect size for a video stimulus in a 2 x 2 between-subjects experiment with a moderator and control group—calculated for a factorial-design ANOVA with fixed effects, an effect size of .25, and a power level alpha of .85, recommended a minimum total sample size (N) of 299. This is slightly greater than the most common sample size used in source credibility experiments, which is about 250 subjects (Hellmueller & Trilling, 2012). Based on these results, 120 participants were needed for each of two treatment groups (early disclosure, delayed disclosure), while 60 were needed for a control group. Of the 120 for each treatment group, half needed to have positive pre-existing attitudes toward LGBQ people while the other half had negative pre-existing attitudes. The study sought 30 of each pre-existing attitude for each condition through quota sampling questions. Procedure Prospective participants were first asked demographic questions including age, zip code, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and their frequency of watching video news content. With the exception of ethnicity, these questions also served as screening questions to Timing Early/Delayed Pre-existing LGBQ attitudes Liking Credibility 75 determine eligibility. Participants had to be at least 18 years old, and only those who identified as male or female, cisgender, and straight were eligible. Those who said they watch news videos less than once a week were ineligible, as were those who reside in zip codes for the following Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs): Los Angeles, Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville, Jacksonville, Wilmington, and Columbia, SC. Zip codes were obtained from TRUCKADS (n.d.). Respondents next answered eight ideological questions, including two about attitudes toward LGBQ individuals and six masking questions about other issues such as gun control, affirmative action, and abortion, which were included to conceal the LGBQ nature of the study. The LGBQ-related questions asked “Do you favor or oppose legislation to prohibit discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools?” and “Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children?” Responses were on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Favor - 1 to Strongly Oppose - 5. The question order was randomized. Respondents who favor “don’t say gay” bills and oppose same-sex adoption were assigned to the negative LGBQ attitude group while those who oppose “don’t say gay” bills and support same-sex adoption were assigned to the positive LGBQ group. Respondents who selected neutral for one but favor or oppose for the other were assigned to the attitude group aligned with the non-neutral item, while respondents who selected neutral for both LGBQ questions were excluded from participation in order to include only participants with positive and negative bias. Respondents who said they favor both “don’t say gay” and same-sex adoption, or those who said they oppose both, were excluded due to the mixed responses. Once sorted into groups based on positive or negative LGBQ attitudes, participants were randomly assigned to see four stories in a treatment group (early disclosure/delayed disclosure) or control group (no disclosure). The order in which each stimulus was presented was counterbalanced using a Latin 76 square design to control for order effects. D represents disclosure and nD is no disclosure: Early Disclosure DABC, DBCA, DCAB Delayed Disclosure ABCD, BCAD, CABD Early Control nDABC, nDBCA, nDCAB Delayed Control ABCnD, BCAnD, CABnD Stimuli The news stories used as stimuli were reports by Tim Pulliam that aired on Los Angeles ABC affiliate KABC in 2022 and 2023.8 On Friday, June 9, and Saturday, June 10, 2023, Pulliam reported live from the Los Angeles State Historic Park for both nights of the annual Pride in the Park festival. The first night’s story covered the event and Friday headline performer Megan Thee Stallion. Pulliam did not refer to himself during the report, which mentioned “the event bringing together members of the LGBTQ community and allies” (Pulliam, 2023b) (Figure 3). The next night’s story was similar, except in his on-camera introduction, Pulliam said Saturday headline performer Mariah Carey “let the community know, my community, that she loves us and supports us" (Pulliam, 2023c) (Figure 4). This type of disclosure has been employed by newscasters for three decades, “using the word us instead of them when covering the gay community” (Hanania, 1994, para. 22). The control group saw the night one report while the treatment group saw the second night’s story. 8 Pulliam agreed to have his reporting included in this study. He initially produced a different pair of control and treatment stimuli in collaboration with the researcher. The original treatment stimulus with disclosure was an alternate version of a story that aired at a prior station, which was the original control. The Pride in the Park stories met the same disclosure/no disclosure criteria and replaced the original stimuli, with other stories selected to match. 77 Figure 3. KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on night one of Pride in the Park 2023 Figure 4. KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on night two of Pride in the Park 2023 The other videos were reports by Pulliam on a variety of topics that viewers are likely to see during typical newscasts: crime, weather, and human interest. The crime story was about an investigation into the discovery of a body inside a 55-gallon barrel found floating at a Malibu beach (Pulliam & Garcia, 2023) (Figure 5). The weather story was about an evacuation order due to flooding and mud slide concerns following heavy rain (Pulliam & Rand, 2022) (Figure 6). The human interest story was about the start of the Writers Guild of America strike (Cruz et al., 2023) (Figure 7). These avoid potentially controversial subjects such as Black Lives Matter rallies or political issues that might elicit strong reactions from viewers favoring a particular side. 78 Figure 5. KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on a homicide investigation Figure 6. KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on flooding and a mud slide evacuation order Figure 7. KABC newscaster Tim Pulliam reports on the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike 79 Selecting stories with presentation formats, runtimes, and physical appearance of the newscaster similar to that of the disclosure story help reduce potential confounds which could cause variances in responses due to attributes other than disclosure. Each story uses the format in which a newscaster “bookends” the report, appearing on camera to introduce and wrap the story, rather than having a “bridge” in which they appear in the middle of the report. Because Pulliam’s on-camera report took place at the Los Angeles State Historic Park, only stories reported live on location were included, rather than appearances in the KABC studio or newsroom. Because Pulliam wore a shirt without a tie for the disclosure story, the other stories feature more casual clothing rather than formal suits. Pulliam wore a gold lapel pin featuring the Circle 7 logo used by many ABC affiliates which have that station number, so other stories also included the lapel pin. To avoid confounding the experiment with participants who may already be familiar with Pulliam, anyone from markets in which he has worked—Los Angeles, California, Raleigh, North Carolina, Jacksonville, Florida, Columbia, South Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina—were excluded from participating. As Pulliam has made some national appearances for ABC News, subjects were asked at the end of the study if they had seen him before, and respondents who answered yes were deemed ineligible because of this prior familiarity. Measures Credibility Three dimensions of credibility (competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill) were each measured with three bipolar adjective items selected from McCroskey and Teven’s (1999) 18-item Measure of Ethos/Credibility. “Competence” includes terms associated with knowledge, “trustworthiness” has terms associated with honesty, and “goodwill” contrasts self-centeredness and selflessness (Figure 8). These items were measured numerically on a seven-point semantic 80 differential scale. All nine items were positively scored, with higher scores representing higher credibility. Bipolar terms omitted from McCroskey and Teven’s (1999) measures, which has six items for each dimension, included “bright-stupid,” “moral-immoral,” “ethical-unethical,” and “[not] concerned with me.” McCroskey and Teven (1999) found competency, trustworthiness, and goodwill had a co-linear relationship and an Alpha reliability of .94 when combined, but cautioned against only relying on an index (p. 101): It would be tempting to simply sum all of the items in the instrument and use that as the measure of credibility. However, since it was found that each of the sub-dimensions accounted for significant variance as unique predictors, as well as colinear prediction when paired, we believe the argument calling for working with the three dimension scores as the operationalization of credibility would be the most positive alternative. The current study measured and considered the dimensions separately and together in an index. Cronbach's alphas for three items each for Competence, Trustworthiness, and Goodwill were .90, .94, and .89, respectively. The alpha for the combined Credibility index was .87. Figure 8. Measures of Credibility Instructions: Please rate the reporter of this story, Tim Pulliam, on the following items: Competence Unintelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intelligent Untrained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trained Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent Trustworthiness Dishonest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Honest Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy Phony 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Genuine Goodwill Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not self-centered Doesn’t care about me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cares about me Doesn’t have my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Has my interests at heart interests at heart McCroskey and Teven (1999) conducted a separate measure for likableness to determine connections between goodwill and the overall credibility index, but their questions simply asked perceivers to indicate whether they found a target “likable” using a five-point semantic 81 differential scale with paired terms such as “yes-no,” “right-wrong,” and “correct-incorrect.” Likability Likability was measured using six of the 11 items from Reysen’s (2005) Likability Scale. Three statements were adapted to bipolar adjectives, such as changing “This person is friendly” to “unfriendly-friendly,” in order to match the credibility measures (Figure #). These were measured numerically on a seven-point semantic differential scale. A “likableness” dimension of likability comprised these bipolar adjectives, which were positively scored with higher scores representing higher likability. Three labelled responses that included statements such as “I would like this person as a friend” were scored on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree - 1 to Strongly Agree – 7. These statements about a willingness to personally interact with the target formed a “liking” dimension, while “likableness” was about perception from a distance. Omitted items from Reysen’s (2005) scale included those comparable with credibility measures, such as “knowledgeable,” and irrelevant statements such as “this person is physically attractive” and “I would like this person as a roommate.” Cronbach's alphas for three items each for Likableness and Liking were .94 and .93, respectively, and the Likability index was .88. Figure 9. Measures of Likability Instructions: Please rate the reporter of this story, Tim Pulliam, on the following items: Likableness Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friendly Unlikable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likable Unapproachable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Approachable Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: Liking I would ask this person for advice. I would like this person as a coworker. I would like to be friends with this person. Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 82 The researcher downloaded the selected video stories from the KABC website, the KABC YouTube page, and Pulliam’s Twitter account. The researcher converted all of the videos to display at 720p resolution and uploaded them to YouTube, along with thumbnail images pulled from the b-roll of each video and titles that matched those KABC used for their headlines. Videos had “unlisted” privacy settings, and the links were uploaded to Qualtrics with settings so participants had to wait until a story finished playing before they could proceed to the credibility and likability questions associated with that video. After participants completed all four rounds of evaluations, a question which asked participants to identify if the newscaster was gay, straight, or that they were unsure accompanied the question about whether they had seen him before. Following the completion of these questions, a debriefing document required by the researcher’s Institutional Review Board informed participants that the full purpose of the study was “to learn about the ways audiences watch TV news and the attention viewers give to on-screen presenters if and when presenters self-disclose gay identity.”9 Participants were then given the option to withdraw their data. Pilot Launch A pilot launch of the experiment included 40 participants, since the full project needed 300 and such studies should include at least 10% of the full project’s intended sample (Coleman, 2018). Participants were recruited online through the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform, using CloudResearch to filter MTurk for “high quality” workers who had maintained an MTurk approval rating of at least 95% while participating in at least 100 previous MTurk projects. Recruits were offered $2.50 for their participation in a study estimated to take about 15 minutes. Potential participants were informed that there would be some questions to determine 9 The text in italics was excluded from the IRB-approved Informed Consent Form at the beginning of the study. 83 eligibility, and that attempts to take the survey after being deemed ineligible would result in disqualification from the study. The pilot study data identified weaknesses in the Qualtrics screening process as some users made as many as eight attempts to access the study, often changing their answers to identificatory or ideological questions to try to participate. Four of the 40 respondents who completed the pilot study were disqualified. An analysis of the small sample (n = 36) found the experimental instrument itself proved successful. These 36 responses were included in the sample for the full study. Results After disqualifying or discarding the data of 20 respondents for failing attention checks or violating the written terms of eligibility such as making multiple attempts to successfully answer screening questions (sometimes using multiple IP addresses to bypass Qualtrics security) or straight-lining responses such as clicking 4/Neutral for every answer, there was a total sample size of 321 participants. There were 197 men (61.4%) and 124 women. Nearly eight in 10 (255, 79.4%) are White, while 32 are Black (10%), 20 are Asian (6.2%), 11 are Hispanic (3.4%), and three identify as a member of another racial group. Their ages range from 22 to 79, with an average age of 44.5 (M = 44.5, Mdn = 42, SD = 12). The sample was closely split on support for favorable LGBTQ policies and individuals, with 156 (48.6%) expressing positive LGBTQ attitudes and 165 (51.4%) holding negative attitudes. Participants were split into two groups based on their LGBQ attitudes, and within those groups they were randomly assigned to subgroups that watched four videos and received either the treatment or control video after the first video (V1) or fourth video (V4). Four out of five participants were in the treatment group10. There were no significant differences among the 10 Groups were unbalanced as part of the design. The unbalanced groups did not result in unequal error variance for any of the DVs, according to Levene’s tests. Levene’s statistics for Credibility = 1.70 (1, 320) p = .193; Competence 84 groups based on age (F = 1.57, df = 3, p = .197), gender (F = 1.90, df = 3, p= .129), race (F = 0.29, df = 3, p = .830), or support for LGBQ policies (F = 0.19, df = 3, p = .903). H1a predicted viewers would rate an LGBQ newscaster who discloses his sexual orientation significantly less credible than an LGBQ newscaster who does not. This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences in the credibility index scores between those who got disclosure and those who did not (F = 0.11, df =1, 320, p = .742, ηp2 < .001). There were no significant differences in any of the three credibility dimensions (Table 2). H1b predicted viewers would rate an LGBQ newscaster who discloses his sexual orientation significantly less likable than an LGBQ newscaster who does not. This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences in the likability index scores between those who got disclosure and those who did not (F < .01, df = 1, 320, p = .968, ηp2 < .001). There were no significant differences in either of the likability dimension (Table 2). Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVA for Disclosure on Credibility and Likability Measure Disclosure No Disclosure F(1, 256) p ηp2 M SD M SD Credibility 5.46 1.06 5.41 0.86 0.11 .742 < .001 Competence 5.94 1.00 5.87 0.83 0.24 .624 .001 Trustworthiness 5.70 1.22 5.71 1.06 0.01 .931 .001 Goodwill 4.73 1.31 4.64 1.04 0.26 .613 .001 Likability 5.30 1.20 5.30 1.02 < 0.01 .968 < .001 Likableness 5.64 1.16 5.64 1.00 < 0.01 .999 < .001 Liking 4.97 1.35 4.96 1.19 < 0.01 .942 < .001 n = 257 64 H2a predicted that viewers would rate an LGBQ newscaster who discloses his sexual orientation early significantly less credible than an LGBQ newscaster who delays disclosure. = 1.42 (1, 320), p = .234; Trustworthiness = 0.67 (1, 320), p = .414, Goodwill = 2.17 (1, 320), p = .076; Likability = 2.27 (1, 320) p = ;133; Likableness = 1.01 (1, 320), p = .315; and Liking = 2.87 (1, 320), p = .090. 85 This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences in the credibility scores between the early and delayed disclosure conditions (F = 0.32, df = 1, 256, p = .575, ηp2 = .001). There were no significant differences in any of the credibility dimensions. (Table 2). H2b predicted that viewers would rate an LGBQ newscaster who discloses his sexual orientation early significantly less likable than an LGBQ newscaster who delays disclosure. This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences in the likability scores between the early and delayed disclosure conditions (F = 0.08, df = 1, 256, p = .774, ηp2 < .001). There were no significant differences in either likability dimension (Table 3). Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Timing of Disclosure on Credibility and Likability Early Delayed Measure Disclosure Disclosure F(1, 256) p ηp2 M SD M SD Credibility 5.42 1.15 5.49 0.97 0.32 .575 .001 Competence 5.83 1.11 6.05 0.83 2.99 .085 .012 Trustworthiness 5.64 1.29 5.75 1.15 0.57 .451 .002 Goodwill 4.79 1.29 4.68 1.33 0.43 .511 .002 Likability 5.30 1.20 5.32 1.13 0.08 .774 < .001 Likableness 5.60 1.23 5.67 1.10 0.23 .632 .001 Liking 4.96 1.42 4.98 1.29 0.01 .923 < .001 n = 128 129 The next set of hypotheses used PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2018) to test moderation by estimating direct effects using unstandardized regression coefficients and bootstrapping. If the upper and lower confidence levels do not contain zero, the effect is significant. H3a predicted that pre-existing LGBQ attitudes will moderate ratings of credibility of an LGBQ newscaster who discloses. This hypothesis expects that those with negative pre-existing attitudes will rate newscasters who disclose, regardless of the timing, less credible than those with positive pre-existing attitudes because of their biases. This hypothesis was supported. There was a significant moderation of attitude on timing (ß = −0.593, SE = .241, p = .015, 86 95% CI = −1.069, −0.118), such that the effect of timing on credibility was stronger for those with negative attitudes (Figure 10). Attitude had a significant positive direct effect on credibility (ß = 0.848, SE = .121, p <.001, 95% CI = 0.610, 1.086) as people with positive attitudes rated the newscaster as more credible. Timing of disclosure did not have a significant direct effect on credibility (ß = 0.084, SE = .121, p = .485, 95% CI = −0.153, 0.322). The researcher conducted analyses of the individual dimensions of credibility to determine exactly where the effects of attitudes were observed. There was a significant moderation of attitude on timing for competence (ß = –0.613, SE = .234, p = .009, 95% CI = –1.073, –0.153), such that the effect of timing on competence was stronger for those with negative attitudes (Figure 11). Attitude had a significant positive direct effect on competence (ß = 0.661, SE = .117, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.431, 0.891) as people with positive attitudes rated the newscaster as more competent. Timing of disclosure did not have a significant direct effect on competence (ß = 0.224, SE = .117, p = .057, 95% CI = −0.006, 0.453). 87 There was not a significant moderation of attitude on timing for trustworthiness (ß = −0.492, SE = .283, p = .832, 95% CI = −1.045, 0.065) (Figure 12). Attitude had a significant positive direct effect on trustworthiness (ß = 0.905, SE = .141, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.627, 1.183) as people with positive attitudes rated the newscaster more trustworthy. Timing did not have a significant effect on trustworthiness (ß = 0.126, SE = .141, p = .374, 95% CI = −0.153, 0.404). There was a significant moderation of attitude on timing for goodwill (ß = −0.675., SE = .302, p = .026, 95% CI = −1.269, −0.081), such that the effect of timing on goodwill was stronger for those with positive attitudes (Figure 13). Attitude had a significant positive direct effect on goodwill (ß = 0.978, SE = .151, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.681, 0.275) as people with positive attitudes 88 rated the newscaster as having more goodwill. Timing did not have a significant direct effect on goodwill (ß = −0.096, SE = .151, p = .524, 95% CI = −0.393, 0.201). H3b predicted that pre-existing LGBQ attitudes will moderate ratings of likability of an LGBQ newscaster who discloses. This hypothesis expects that those with negative pre-existing attitudes will rate newscasters who disclose, regardless of the timing, less likable than those with positive pre-existing attitudes because of their biases. This hypothesis was supported. There was a significant moderation of attitude on timing for likability (ß = −0.557, SE = .271, p = .041, 95% CI = −1.092, −0.023), such that the effect of timing on likability was stronger for those with negative attitudes (Figure 14). Attitude had a significant positive effect on likability (ß = 0.989, SE = .136, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.721, 1.256) as people with positive attitudes rated the newscaster as being more likable. Timing of disclosure did not have a significant direct effect on likability (ß = 0.055, SE = .136, p = .688, 95% CI = −0.213, 0.322). 89 The researcher conducted analyses of the individual dimensions of likability to determine exactly where the effects of attitudes were observed. There was not a significant moderation of attitude on timing for likableness (ß = −0.441, SE = .270, p = .104, 95% CI = −0.973, 0.091) (Figure 15). Attitude had a significant positive direct effect on likableness (ß = 0.855, SE = .135, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.589, 1.121), as people with positive attitudes rated the newscaster as having more likableness. Timing of disclosure did not have a significant direct effect on likableness (ß = 0.080, SE = .135, p = .556, 95% CI = −0.186, 0.345). 90 There was a significant moderation of attitude on timing for liking (ß = −0.674, SE = .306, p <= .029, 95% CI = −1.277, −0.071), such that the effect of timing on liking was stronger for those with negative attitudes (Figure 16). Attitude had a significant positive direct effect on liking (ß = 1.122, SE = .153, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.820, 1.424) as people with positive attitudes liked the newscaster more. Timing of disclosure did not have a significant direct effect on liking (ß = 0.030, SE = .153, p = .848, 95% CI = −0.272, 0.331). The following statistical analyses used univariate ANOVAs to compare the participants’ average ratings across all four videos. H4a predicted that people with negative LGBQ attitudes would rate an LGBQ newscaster who discloses his sexual orientation early significantly less credible than an LGBQ newscaster who delays disclosure. This hypothesis was not supported. The means for the credibility index score were in the direction predicted as people with negative LGBQ attitudes rated the newscaster lower in credibility when they saw early disclosure, but the results were not significant (F = 3.60, df 1, 131, p = .060, ηp2 = .016). People with negative LGBQ attitudes rated the newscaster significantly lower in competence when they saw early disclosure (F = 7.54, df 1, 131, p = .007, ηp2 = .055). There were no significant 91 differences for trustworthiness or goodwill (Table 1.#). H4b predicted that people with negative LGBQ attitudes would rate an LGBQ newscaster who discloses his sexual orientation early significantly less likable than an LGBQ newscaster who delays disclosure. This hypothesis was not supported. The differences in responses for likability from people with negative LGBQ attitudes who saw early and delayed disclosure were not significant (F = 2.19, df 1, 131, p = .141, ηp2 = .016). There were no significant differences for likableness or liking (Table 4). Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Timing of Disclosure on Credibility and Likability for Negative LGBQ Attitudes Early Delayed Measure Disclosure Disclosure F(1, 132) p ηp2 M SD M SD Credibility 4.86 1.21 5.23 1.04 3.60 .060 .016 Competence 5.35 1.23 5.88 0.94 7.54 .007 .055 Trustworthiness 5.07 1.38 5.44 1.26 2.52 .115 .019 Goodwill 4.14 1.26 4.37 1.44 0.97 .327 .007 Likability 4.66 1.29 4.98 1.23 2.19 .141 .016 Likableness 5.07 1.31 5.37 1.19 1.83 .179 .014 Liking 4.24 1.42 4.60 1.40 2.12 .148 .016 n = 65 67 RQ1a asked if credibility ratings from people with positive LGBQ attitudes will differ between the early and delayed disclosure conditions, and if so, how? The differences in responses for credibility from people with positive attitudes who saw early and delayed disclosure was not significant (F = 2.63, df 1, 124, p = .108, ηp2 = .021). People with positive LGBQ attitudes rated the newscaster significantly higher in goodwill when they saw early disclosure (F = 5.76, df 1, 131, p = .018, ηp2 = .045), but there were no significant differences for competence or trustworthiness (Table #). RQ1b asked if likability ratings from people with positive LGBQ attitudes will differ 92 between the early and delayed disclosure conditions, and if so, how? The differences in responses for likability from people with positive attitudes who saw early and delayed disclosure was not significant (F = 2.26, df 1, 131, p = .361, ηp2 = .018). There were no significant differences for likableness or liking (Table 5). Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Timing of Disclosure on Credibility and Likability for Positive LGBQ Attitudes Early Delayed Measure Disclosure Disclosure F(1, 124) p ηp2 M SD M SD Credibility 6.00 0.72 5.78 0.80 2.63 .108 .021 Competence 6.32 0.71 6.23 0.76 0.49 .488 .004 Trustworthiness 6.22 0.87 6.09 0.91 0.63 .429 .005 Goodwill 5.46 0.93 5.01 1.12 5.76 .018 .045 Likability 5.93 0.84 5.69 0.89 2.26 .361 .018 Likableness 6.14 0.85 6.00 0.89 0.89 .349 .007 Liking 5.70 0.97 5.39 1.03 3.14 .079 .025 n = 63 62 RQ2 asked if impressions of a) credibility and b) likability will change significantly between the first and fourth videos, to identify potential primacy effects. A paired-sample t-test of credibility showed significant differences between V1 and V4 for the early disclosure group (t = −4.47, df = 1, 127, p < .001). Those who got early disclosure were significantly more positive after the fourth video than after the first (V1 M = 5.22, SD = 1.31; V4 M = 5.52, SD = 1.22). Individual analyses of the three dimensions of credibility found the same significant differences between V1 and V4 for all three dimensions (Table 6). A paired-sample t-test of likability showed significant differences between V1 and V4 for the early disclosure group (t = −2.67, df = 1, 127, p = .009). Those who got early disclosure were significantly more positive after the fourth video than after the first (V1 M = 5.17, SD = 1.37; V4 M = 5.35, SD = 1.34). Individual analyses of the two dimensions of likability found significant 93 differences between V1 and V4 for liking (t = −4.52, df = 1, 127, p < .001) but not likableness (t = −0.13, df = 1, 127, p = .896) (Table 6). Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability for Early Disclosure, Comparing First and Fourth Impressions Measure V1 V4 t(127) p M SD M SD Credibility 5.22 1.31 5.52 1.22 −4.47 < .001 Competency 5.73 1.26 5.88 1.23 −2.07 .040 Trustworthiness 5.47 1.52 5.71 1.35 −2.88 .005 Goodwill 4.47 1.50 4.97 1.38 −5.56 < .001 Likability 5.17 1.37 5.35 1.34 −2.67 .009 Likableness 5.61 1.31 5.62 1.35 −0.13 .896 Liking 4.72 1.60 5.08 1.47 −4.52 < .001 n = 128 Paired-sample t-tests for the delayed disclosure group found no significant differences between V1 and V4 for credibility (t = 0.12, df = 1, 128, p = .906) or likability (t = 0.21, df = 1, 128, p = .834). RQ3 asked if impressions of a) credibility and b) likability will change significantly between the third and fourth videos, to identify potential recency effects. A paired-sample t-test of credibility showed significant differences between V3 and V4 for the delayed disclosure group (t = 2.71, df = 1, 128, p = .008). Those who got delayed disclosure were significantly more negative after the fourth video than after the third (V3 M = 5.59, SD = 1.03; V4 M = 5.39, SD = 1.23). Individual analyses of the three dimensions of credibility found the same significant differences between V3 and V4 for competency (t = 2.46, df = 1, 128, p = .015) and goodwill (t = 2.64, df = 1, 128, p = .009) but not trustworthiness (t = 1.81, df = 1, 128, p = .072) (Table #). A paired-sample t-test of likability showed significant differences between V3 and V4 for the delayed disclosure group (t = 2.40, df = 1, 128, p = .018). Those who got delayed disclosure 94 were significantly more negative after the fourth video than after the third (V3 M = 5.41, SD = 1.17; V4 M = 5.22, SD = 1.46). Individual analyses of the two dimensions of likability found significant differences between V3 and V4 for liking (t = 3.31, df = 1, 128, p = .001) but not likableness (t = 1.18, df = 1, 128, p = .240) (Table 7). Table 7. Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability for Delayed Disclosure, Comparing Third and Fourth Impressions Measure V3 V4 t(127) p M SD M SD Credibility 5.59 1.03 5.39 1.23 2.17 .008 Competency 6.13 0.95 5.96 1.09 2.46 .015 Trustworthiness 5.82 1.26 5.66 1.44 1.81 .072 Goodwill 4.47 1.50 4.97 1.38 2.64 .009 Likability 4.82 1.39 4.56 1.64 2.40 .018 Likableness 5.73 1.17 5.63 1.45 1.18 .240 Liking 5.09 1.31 4.81 1.60 3.31 .001 n = 129 Paired-sample t-tests for the early disclosure group found no significant differences between V3 and V4 for credibility (t = 0.42, df = 1, 127, p = .670) or likability (t = 0.61, df = 1, 127, p = .542). RQ4 asked if significant changes to impressions of a) credibility and b) likability between videos will vary based on attitude, to identify potential recency effects. A paired-sample t-test of credibility for people with negative LGBQ attitudes showed significant differences between V1 and V4 for the early (t = −3.73, df = 1, 64, p < .001) and delayed (t = 2.30, df = 1, 66, p = .025) disclosure groups. The early group was significantly more positive after V4 than after V1 (Table #.1), while the delayed group was significantly more negative after V4 than after V1 (Table #.2). Individual analyses of the credibility dimensions found the same significant differences between V1 and V4 for trustworthiness and goodwill, but no significant differences between V1 and V4 for competence from either timing group. 95 A paired-sample t-test of likability for people with negative LGBQ attitudes showed significant differences between V1 and V4 for the early (t = −3.08, df = 1, 64, p = .003) and delayed (t = 2.36, df = 1, 66, p = .021) disclosure groups. The early group was significantly more positive after V4 than after V1 (Table 8.1), while the delayed group was significantly more negative after V4 than after V1 (Table 8.2). Individual analyses of the likability dimensions found the same significant differences between V1 and V4 for liking, but there were no significant differences between V1 and V4 for likableness from either timing group. Table 8.1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Negative Early Comparing First and Fourth Impressions Measure V1 V4 t(64) p M SD M SD Credibility 4.54 1.36 4.95 1.31 −3.73 < .001 Competence 5.18 1.43 5.37 1.38 −1.60 .115 Trustworthiness 4.78 1.58 5.15 1.48 −2.74 .009 Goodwill 3.65 1.47 4.32 1.51 −4.55 < .001 Likability 4.41 1.35 4.73 1.39 −3.08 .003 Likableness 5.04 1.38 5.05 1.40 −0.09 .928 Liking 3.77 1.53 4.41 1.52 −5.08 < .001 n = 65 Table 8.2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Negative Delayed Comparing First and Fourth Impressions Measure V1 V4 t(66) p M SD M SD Credibility 5.21 1.10 4.93 1.30 2.30 .025 Competence 5.77 1.17 5.70 1.21 0.97 .337 Trustworthiness 5.49 1.31 5.14 1.58 2.14 .036 Goodwill 4.37 1.51 3.96 1.51 3.23 .002 Likability 4.96 1.26 4.66 1.54 2.36 .021 Likableness 5.33 1.21 5.12 1.54 1.55 .126 Liking 4.58 1.49 4.20 1.69 2.74 .008 n = 67 A paired-sample t-test of credibility for people with negative LGBQ attitudes showed significant differences between V3 and V4 for the delayed (t = 3.92, df = 1, 66, p < .001) but not 96 the early (t = 0.62, df =1, 64, p = 0.54) disclosure group. The delayed group was significantly more negative after V4 than after V3 (Table #). Individual analyses of the dimensions found the same significant differences between V3 and V4 for all three measures from the delayed group. A paired-sample t-test of likability showed significant differences between V3 and V4 for the negative delayed (t = 3.32, df = 1, 66, p = .001) but not the negative early (t = 0.90, df = 1, 64, p = 0.900) disclosure group. The delayed group was significantly more negative after V4 than after V1 (Table 9). Individual analyses of the dimensions found the same significant differences between V1 and V4 for both measures from the delayed group. Table 9. Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Negative Delayed Comparing Third and Fourth Impressions Measure V3 V4 t(66) p M SD M SD Credibility 5.39 1.17 4.93 1.30 3.92 < .001 Competence 5.96 1.06 5.70 1.21 2.47 .016 Trustworthiness 5.54 1.43 5.14 1.58 2.69 .009 Goodwill 4.63 1.56 3.96 1.51 4.50 < .001 Likability 5.11 1.32 4.66 1.54 3.32 .001 Likableness 5.46 1.32 5.12 1.54 2.47 .016 Liking 4.58 1.49 4.20 1.69 2.74 .008 n = 67 A paired-sample t-test of credibility for people with positive LGBQ attitudes showed significant differences between V1 and V4 for both the early (t = −2.53, df = 1, 62, p = .014) and delayed (t = −3.10, df = 1, 61, p = .003) disclosure groups. Both the early (V1 M = 5.93, SD = 0.78; V4 M = 6.11, SD = 0.77) and delayed (V1 M =5.61, SD = 0.88; V4 M = 5.89, SD = 0.94) groups were significantly more positive after V4 than after V1. Individual analyses of the credibility dimensions found the same significant differences between V1 and V4 for trustworthiness and goodwill from the delayed group (Table #), but only goodwill (t = −3.30, df = 1, 62, p = .002) from the early group (V1 M = 5.31, SD = 0.99; V4 M = 5.65, SD = 1.00). 97 A paired-sample t-test of likability for people with positive LGBQ attitudes showed significant differences between V1 and V4 for the delayed (t = −3.69, df = 1, 61, p < .001) but not the early (t = −0.47, df = 1, 62, p = .641) disclosure groups. The delayed group (V1 M = 5.53, SD = 0.87; V4 M = 5.82, SD = 1.09) was significantly more positive after V4 than after V1. Individual analyses of the likability dimensions found the same significant differences between V1 and V4 for both measures from the delayed group (Table 10). Table 10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample T-Tests of Credibility and Likability from Positive Delayed Comparing First and Fourth Impressions Measure V1 V4 t(127) p M SD M SD Credibility 5.61 0.88 5.89 0.94 −3.10 .003 Competency 6.12 0.85 6.28 0.86 −1.71 .091 Trustworthiness 5.96 1.13 6.22 1.02 −2.03 .047 Goodwill 4.76 1.15 5.22 1.31 −4.06 < .001 Likability 5.53 0.87 5.82 1.09 −3.69 < .001 Likableness 5.82 0.98 6.19 1.11 −3.47 .001 Liking 5.25 0.99 5.46 1.21 −2.55 .013 n = 128 Paired samples t-tests of credibility and likability for people with positive LGBQ attitudes found no significant differences between V3 and V4 in any dimension for either the early or delayed disclosure groups. Additional Exploratory Analysis Participant Gender A comparison of responses by gender found that women gave significantly higher scores than men in every category (Table 11). This was consistent across both positive and negative attitude groups. These results align with research that found straight men have more unfavorable views of gay men than straight women do (Davies, 2004; Herek, 1988, 2002; Kite et al., 2021). 98 Table 11. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Credibility and Likability Comparing Genders Measure Men Women F(1, 256) p ηp2 M SD M SD Credibility 5.19 1.12 5.87 0.80 28.12 < .001 .099 Competence 5.74 1.10 6.25 0.74 17.11 < .001 .063 Trustworthiness 5.43 1.30 6.11 0.95 20.42 < .001 .074 Goodwill 4.40 1.32 5.25 1.10 29.17 < .001 .103 Likability 4.98 1.28 5.80 0.84 40.63 < .001 .111 Likableness 5.35 1.28 6.08 0.78 26.81 < .001 .095 Liking 4.62 1.42 5.51 1.03 29.81 < .001 .105 n = 128 129 Noticing Disclosure Only two-thirds (65.4%) of those who heard the newscaster say “she told the community, my community, that she loves us and supports us” correctly identified him as gay when asked at the end of the study. It is possible that the phrasing was misinterpreted or missed entirely. An analysis of the credibility and likability ratings from only participants who accurately answered this question found results similar to the overall findings. The only significant differences tied to timing of disclosure for people with negative LGBQ attitudes who identified the newscaster as gay were in competence (F = 1.45, df = 1, 89, p = .009, ηp2 < .001. Early Disclosure M = 5.21, SD = 1.33, Delayed Disclosure, M = 5.87, SD = 0.94). Competence was also the only dimension with significant differences from timing for the full sample of people with negative attitudes. For people with positive LGBQ attitudes, the goodwill and liking dimensions had significant differences tied to timing, with the early disclosure group expressing significantly more positive views (Table 12). This also matched the full sample of positive attitudes. 99 Table 12. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVAs for Credibility and Likability for Positive Attitudes Who Identified Newscaster as Gay Early Delayed Measure Disclosure Disclosure F(1, 77) p ηp2 M SD M SD Credibility 6.25 0.56 5.88 0.81 2.44 .021 .068 Competence 6.52 0.61 6.38 0.68 0.91 .345 .012 Trustworthiness 6.50 0.69 6.24 0.86 2.19 .143 .028 Goodwill 5.73 0.83 5.01 1.25 8.90 .004 .105 Likability 6.27 0.59 5.81 0.89 7.18 .009 .086 Likableness 6.49 0.61 6.19 0.86 3.25 .075 .100 Liking 6.05 0.76 5.43 1.09 1.40 .005 .015 n = 38 40 Participants from both attitude groups who received early disclosure provided more favorable scores than those who received delayed disclosure, which aligns with the full sample. Discussion LGBQ newscasters should be able to be open and public about their identity without fear that disclosure of their sexual orientation will affect perceptions of their credibility or likability. Their personal relationships, the people they are attracted to and love, do not affect their abilities to gather and report information. Newscasters can control the way they conduct interviews and construct stories, but they have no say in the attitudes viewers bring with them. This study tested three main variables: if disclosure occurred, when it occurred, and the attitudes of audience members. While outing by someone else is possible, newscasters typically get to make decisions about whether or not to disclose and when to do so, but they can’t select the attitudes of their audience. The positive findings from this study are that the factors LGBQ newscasters can control do not make much of a difference: disclosure and when it happens matter little to viewers as they form impressions of an LGBQ newscaster. The main factor in whether a viewer perceives an LGBQ newscaster highly for credibility and likableness is the 100 viewer’s pre-existing attitudes about LGBTQ people. Effects of Disclosure The results did not show significant differences between participants who heard the reporter self-identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community and participants who did not receive such disclosure. This is good news for newscasters who may fear—or whose managers may fear—that such identification might have negative ramifications on audience perceptions. No newscaster should feel compelled to come out publicly, but they should not have lingering worries that being found “out” might do harm to their professional reputation. Effects of Timing While earlier timing of disclosure studies had mixed findings about whether early or delayed disclosure is more advantageous, this study found no significant differences between either the early or delayed condition overall. This is good news for LGBQ newscasters who may have concerns about whether waiting to disclose is better, as delaying for any amount of time requires concealment until that disclosure occurs. There were some immediate negative reactions from participants with negative LGBQ attitudes in response to the disclosure whenever it occurred, which aligns with Gross et al.’s (1980) findings that disclosure of homosexuality would receive negative responses no matter when disclosure happened, but allowing time after the disclosure to add new information and traits in addition to sexual orientation would provide an opportunity for that impression to improve. The results showed that people with negative LGBQ attitudes who received early disclosure significantly increased their perceptions of the newscaster’s credibility and likability after watching more reports from him. While timing did not make a significant difference for the overall sample, the findings show an interaction between timing and viewer attitudes which indicates possible advantages for early or delayed 101 disclosure based on audience opinions. Effects of Viewer Attitudes Acceptance of LGBQ individuals has increased in tandem with a growing number of popular openly gay public figures, but there remains a sector of the audience composed of prejudiced people. This study found that people who expressed support for same-sex adoption and opposition of “don’t say gay” legislation rated a gay newscaster significantly higher on every dimension of credibility and likability than their peers who oppose same-sex adoption and support “don’t say gay” bills. Despite their comparatively lower scores, people with negative LGBQ attitudes still rated the newscaster with favorable scores with two exceptions. Right after they saw the disclosure video, both the negative early and negative delayed disclosure groups gave mean scores below 4 (Neutral) for goodwill, and the negative early disclosure group also gave mean scores below 4 for liking. This indicates they did not feel or want to feel a closeness to the newscaster, which is a logical response given their attitudes about his identity. People with negative LGBQ attitudes had lower mean scores overall in the early disclosure group, but the only dimension with a significant difference was competence, as the early group had mean scores of 5.35 (SD = 1.23) while the delayed group had mean scores of 5.88 (SD = 0.94). This suggests that there may be benefits for LGBQ newscasters to delay disclosure in communities with stronger negative LGBQ attitudes, waiting until they have built some credibility with their audiences. Even then, the results show that when disclosure eventually occurs, it will still lead to negative responses and less favorable perceptions of credibility and likability despite the impression that already formed. The bad news for LGBQ newscasters is these viewers are going to respond negatively at some point. Positive exposure for several stories had little impact on stopping that negative response, but the V4 scores for the 102 negative delayed disclosure group—right after they saw the disclosure story—were significantly higher than V1 scores for the negative early disclosure group right after they saw the disclosure story. This is additional support for delayed disclosure when dealing with an audience with negative attitudes, and aligns with Buck and Plant’s (2011) findings that sexual orientation carries less weight when revealed late. Although it is discouraging that LGBQ newscasters are still likely to lose favorability among some viewers when they disclose, the good news is that they are likely to regain some of that favorability if given an opportunity; that is, if a viewer keeps watching. As this study ended with a disclosure, there is no evidence about how perceptions might continue to change over time—whether or not a newscaster who loses favor with a viewer due to disclosure can regain that favor and return to the same levels of credibility and likability as they had before the disclosure level—but positive gains in scores from the early disclosure group after an initial bad start is evidence that improvement and recovery is possible. People with positive LGBQ attitudes had higher mean scores in the early disclosure group, although goodwill was the only dimension that was significantly different between the timing conditions. This suggests those participants felt a closeness to the newscaster. The positive early and positive delayed disclosure groups had no significant differences by V4; essentially, the early group got a head start on forming a favorable impression based on allyship and enjoyment of a story, while the delayed group had a more gradual process toward eventually catching up once they saw the same story. Non-significant changes to the positive early disclosure group scores across the videos may be partially attributable to how high they started and the ceiling effect, as scores eventually plateau when they reach a certain level. Effects of Attitudes on Primacy and Recency People with positive LGBQ attitudes had higher perceptions of this study’s newscaster in 103 every category than people with negative LGBQ attitudes. The positive early disclosure group gave the highest first impression scores in every category after V1, the highest formed impression scores in every category after V4, and averaged the highest scores across all four videos in every category. This suggests that a strong, positive first impression inclusive of a traditionally stigmatized minority identity will continue—absent the introduction of any traits deemed negative by the same perceiver. It is possible that a perceiver with positive LGBQ attitudes would change an overall positive impression of a target to an overall negative impression based on something else the newscaster said or did, but they may also be more accepting of any imperfections due to the already established evaluation. The negative LGBQ attitude early disclosure group gave the lowest ratings across all four videos for every category. This group started with the least favorable first impression, which was consistent with exposure to the same content revealed in different orders. The consistency of the low scores from the negative early disclosure group aligns with previous impression formation research which found that negative impressions are more resistant to change (Baumeister et al., 2001). Although the negative early disclosure group slightly shifted their initial goodwill and liking scores from the negative side of the scales to slightly above neutral, these ratings remained low. As Moskowitz et al. (2002) observed, first impressions are resistant to change and require something significant for a substantial shift once a perceiver has made an initial judgment. Most of the groups had minor increases in their ratings from V1 to V4 as they had more exposure to the newscaster and became more familiar with his proficiencies and professionalism in reporting the news. The negative early disclosure group had significant differences between V1 and V4. This suggests that primacy effects were weak, as this group was able to update its impressions. These findings support Hebl and Skorinko’s (2005) argument that an early recognition of 104 a stigma allows a target to demonstrate how they differ from stereotypes held about people with that stigma. By disclosing early, newscasters communicate their stigmatized identity and then leave it behind, so viewers—assuming they stick around—can then see how their stereotypes are wrong. Viewers open to focusing on the most recent reporting rather than the moment of disclosure from previous stories will warm up to newscaster they did not initially like. The negative attitude delayed disclosure group had higher mean scores after V3 than after V1 in every category, indicating their assessments of the newscaster improved with continued exposure to the newscaster. As they became more familiar with his work, their connection to the newscaster increased, not just in their perceptions of his abilities and credibility—as indicated by their competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill scores—but in how likable they found him and how much they would like hypothetical interactions with him. However, not only did their evaluations of the newscaster significantly decrease from V3 to V4, the mean scores after V4 were lower in every category than their first impression mean scores after V1. This suggests strong recency effects for participants with negative LGBQ attitudes, as they assigned greater weight to the exposure to LGBQ content and rejected their earlier impressions due to their prejudice. This aligns with Skowronski and Carlton’s (1989) argument that traits perceived as non-normative, especially negative ones, have a tendency to outweigh positive traits. It also supports Fiske’s (1980) assertion that novel traits revealed late can create a recency bias. As these subjects did not know the newscaster is gay until V4, they may have found sexual orientation “highly diagnostic” and revealing about his “true nature,” which Cone and Ferguson (2015) said can cause impressions to flip from positive to neutral and even negative (p. 37). These “highly diagnostic” traits vary based on the perceiver and their particular attitudes and stereotypes (Cone & Ferguson, 2015); since these subjects were accepted for participation based 105 on their negative LGBQ attitudes, that can be considered as a factor in their decreased credibility and likability scores. “Highly diagnostic” views about LGBQ people can also be very positive, with allies excited to see LGBQ newscasters included in newsrooms and representing their communities on television. As has been argued by multiple advocates for LGBQ journalists (Anderson-Minshall, 2020; Patton, 2022; Soller, 2018), LGBQ individuals are typically familiar with LGBQ issues and can fairly and effectively report on those specific topics. The positive early disclosure group gave the highest mark on competence and trustworthiness, which may be attributable to the newscaster disclosing his personal connection to LGBQ issues, thus identifying himself as a knowledgeable source for this coverage, and particularly credible to report on the topic Goodwill and Trust Goodwill ratings for every group had lower ratings than any of the other dimensions. Goodwill mean scores started below 5 (which corresponds with Somewhat Agree on the 7-point Likert scale used for statement questions) for every group except the positive early disclosure group. That group was also the only one to collectively rate the newscaster above 5.5 for goodwill at any point, after V3 and V4. As the Goodwill items were “cares about me” and “has my interests at heart” rather than “cares about things of interest to me,” and were about a public figure instead of someone with whom the participants actually interacted, it is understandable why these ratings were lower than those associated with the person’s perceived intelligence, integrity, abilities, and likability. Research into public perception about how much journalists care about them—if they care at all—is limited, although scholars have looked at concepts of celebrity ego and self-serving aspects of media. McCroskey and Teven (1999) found test subjects gave lower goodwill 106 scores to “Public Figures” such as Rush Limbaugh than they did to “Political Figures” and “Interpersonal Contacts.” Columbia Journalism editor-in-chief Kyle Pope (2019) wrote that the general public viewed journalism as “self-absorbed,” and also described some journalists as having smug and superior attitudes. When combined with negative attitudes and even hostility toward news media in general, some audience members may simply view newscasters as just attention-seekers. Lewis (2019) identified “a culture of self-centeredness” in the journalism industry (p. 46), and argued that in order for the news media to maintain and regain trust, it is important that “people have the impression that we are responding to their concerns” (p. 47). One way to do that it is by demonstrating a care for their communities. For people with positive LGBQ attitudes, that could mean a desire to newsrooms specifically providing unbiased and even celebratory coverage of the LGBTQ+ community. Media trust is now the lowest it has ever been (Brenan, 2023). Perceptions of media are also associated with ideological attitudes, and although published reports about media trust and skepticism do not directly link LGBQ attitudes, there are links between LGBQ attitudes and political ideology, and between political ideology and media trust. Johansson et al. (2022) found that LGBTQ+ intolerance (and intolerance of other minority groups) is a predictor of climate skepticism and mistrust; there may be similar links between negative LGBQ attitudes and negative attitudes about newscasters, both LGBQ and straight. Limitations Much impression formation research looks at revealing a limited amount of information about a target at a time, often just a single trait (Hamilton & Thurston, 2022). That is challenging for video studies, as viewers judge facial features, race, gender, clothing, physical gestures, vocal tone, the conveyance of emotion, word choice, cadence, as well as on-screen graphics and more. 107 A factor that might have contributed to non-significant differences between the treatment and disclosure conditions could be the response to the topic of the news report. The researcher anticipated that having a Pride story might prompt some negative responses, and opted not to use a control story about a different subject, such as sports, in an attempt to avoid attitudes about Pride becoming a confound. Using two Pride stories was intended to limit the differences between the treatment and control to just whether or not disclosure occurred, but it is possible that participant opinions about Pride overall overpowered the disclosure. Some people with negative LGBQ attitudes may have disliked the newscaster’s tone and script that was celebrative and supportive of the event, while people with positive attitudes might have been pleased by the coverage and perceived the newscaster favorably whether he is gay or an ally. It is possible that participants who did not get the disclosure made assumptions or inferences about the newscaster’s sexual orientation because of the Pride Month story. A joyful demeanor during a celebration of the LGBTQ+ community might lead some individuals to drop the “heterosexual assumption” (Ponse, 1976) they previously held about an individual. Asking “is this reporter gay or straight”—particularly following content that includes LGBTQ+ subject matter—might be a leading question that hints toward a particular response. Studies of “gaydar” (e.g. Barton, 2015; Cox et al., 2016) typically include dozens of targets, and Rule and Alaei’s (2016) meta-analysis of “gaydar” studies found studies consistently show people are able to correctly identify sexual orientation at a higher rate than chance. Although most (54.7%) of the control group participants said they were unsure of his orientation, 29.7% guessed that he is gay. Potential future research could feature a heterosexual newscaster reporting similarly at a Pride event, to see if viewers assume that reporter is gay, or to collaborate with a less straight-passing gay newscaster, or someone who code switches between straight-passing or exhibiting more 108 stereotypically gay traits as far as acoustics and actions. A way to avoid confounds associated with an LGBTQ+ news story’s subject matter would be disclosure during a non-LGBTQ+-related story. Cross talk between newscasters sometimes includes discussion of attending events with a spouse; perhaps at the end of a story previewing an event, a reporter mentions plans to attend with his husband while another version of the same story refers to his wife. Some meteorologists now produce daily weather briefings for YouTube (Spann, 2024), and can comment about families in these forecasts. This would be similar to LGBTQ+ credibility studies in education, in which a professor mentioned an opposite-sex partner before one group of students and a same-sex partner when teaching another (Boren & McPherson, 2018; DeSouza & Olson, 2018; Russ et al., 2002). Isolated comments like those eliminate the potential confounds associated with a Pride event. References to a same-sex spouse can be subtle. It is also possible that the subtlety of the phrasing “she told the community, my community, that she loves us and supports us” was misinterpreted or missed entirely. Rainbow-flag colored attire or a statement like “As a gay man” or “I’m a member of the LGBTQ+ community” could be more attention-grabbing. Potential future research could assess the effects (or effectiveness) of different types of disclosure. It is possible that race-based prejudice played a role in the perception of the newscaster in this study, who is Black. Research on intergroup prejudice has shown overlaps of prejudice and bigotry against multiple groups. In the “Prejudice is a Generalized Attitude” chapter of his seminal The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport (1954) posited that a fact of which he was “most certain is that people who reject one out-group will tend to reject other out-groups” (p. 68). Subsequent research has found some people have prejudices against both gay people and non-White people, such as the assertion from Bergh et al. (2016) that “individuals who devalue 109 ethnic minorities tend to also devalue women, gays and a whole range of other groups” (p. 368). Therefore, some of the individuals screened into the negative LGBQ attitudes group may also hold negative attitudes about Black people such as the newscaster. In contrast, individuals screened into the positive LGBQ attitudes group, especially non-White participants, might have been pleased to see a non-White person speaking as an authority in a position of prominence, which might have enhanced their favorable responses. A study similar to the current one but with a White male newscaster might find perceivers more accepting of a gay White man than Black man. A consideration related to control groups in studies involving perceptions of gay men are the findings of Remedios et al. (2011), who concluded that perceivers unaware of a target’s sexual orientation found gay Black men more likable than straight Black men, while they found gay White men less likable than straight White men. Their study avoided disclosing information about targets’ sexual orientation and did not ask test subjects to consider it (Remedios et al., 2011). Research can also compare attitudinal differences tied to gender by assessing audience reactions to a lesbian reporter, as lesbians are often viewed more favorably than gay men. Additional Future Research There are three modifications to this study’s procedure that could use the same materials. One modification is to use an End of Sequence processing model and have participants evaluate the newscaster only after seeing all four videos. This could allow for a wider variety of questions instead of the same set of 15 repeated four times, while requiring the same amount of time from participants. This would not allow for the assessment immediately following the disclosure for half the participants, but might better assess the overall impression than an updating averaging model. A second modification would be to increase the number of videos to seven, so there is an early, middle, and delayed disclosure group. The current study’s results show scores from the 110 negative LGBQ Attitudes group drop after the V4 disclosure; adding more videos after it would make that group the middle disclosure and allow for testing of a possible recovery reaction. A third version of this experiment would present the news stories over multiple days, which is how news viewers typically see multiple stories from a single newscaster. This would also allow for a study of the possible effects of memory consolidation, and also be similar to many longitudinal parasocial interaction studies which involve a series of exposure to a target. Future research could include LGBTQ+ participants to determine different perceptions based on a perceiver’s sexual orientation. The researcher expects there would be few negative attitudes about an LGBQ newscaster, but there might be valuable information about how LGBTQ+ participants “read” a newscaster. While research has shown the concept of “gaydar” is a myth, it has found that LGBTQ+ people are typically more attuned than straight people to common cues and signals of sexual and gender minority status (e.g., Barton, 2015; Cox et al., 2016; Rule & Alaei, 2016). Comparisons to how straight participants perceive sexual orientation would be valuable to audience studies in understanding cultural awareness in the current climate. Contributions to Research Horton and Wohl (1956) identified the “persona” that viewers create in their minds about who a newscaster is, incorporating traits which they can observe along with other traits they infer, along with even more which they assume and assign to the newscaster without supporting evidence. Impression formation similarly considers the weight that perceivers assign to traits in making a judgment about who that person is, and the effects of the order of the presentation of those traits. These results suggest that the context and situations surrounding the revelation of a trait can contribute to its inclusion in a persona, as can a trait’s relevance or irrelevance to other information and the associated circumstances in which that information is presented. 111 The newscaster’s sexual orientation was connected to the Pride story; the coverage of the event did not require him to reveal himself, but his disclosure about “us” and being part of “the community” communicated his connection with the persons he reported on as well as many of the people he reported to. In that moment, the LGBQ trait—and any stereotypes a perceiver had for that—was part of his identity. Parasocial relationships typically form through repeated encounters, so if a trait is only evident in one encounter, unless it has particular significance to a viewer, it may not be included in the formation of a persona. His LGBQ trait had no relevance to the topics of homicide or flooding or labor agreements in television and film industry. Had there been multiple stories about LGBTQ+-related topics, it is possible negative opinions would have been more resistant to change. due to his sexual orientation becoming a bigger part of his persona. Instead, his sexual orientation was part of the information known about his public identity but it was not necessarily becoming part of the persona created as viewers watched and got to know him, making repeated assessments as that connection had an opportunity to form. Several previous studies involving timing of disclosure studies had participants read about a hypothetical person who was gay, while in two occasions participants watched a video of a person come out to someone else (Buck & Plant, 2011; Dane et al., 2015). This is the first of these studies to have a person speak directly to a research subject and disclose his identity as a sexual and gender minority, albeit mediated through a TV camera. The nature of television news allows this direct kind of one-on-one interaction to reach many individuals all at once. Most of the earlier timing of disclosure studies also primarily used what Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) describe as an End of Sequence processing method, in which participants gave singular assessments after receiving a batch of information. This study used the Step-by-Step processing model, which involves multiple individual assessments across time, to identify 112 immediate effects of the disclosure when it happens (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992). This is also the first study to look at the effects of LGBQ identity on the credibility of a newscaster. Previous studies considered gender, race, age, physical attractiveness, and vocal tone, so this research adds another main immutable trait to those factors. Implications for LGBQ Newscasters and the News Industry Taken as a whole, these findings should provide comfort to LGBQ newscasters that openness about their sexual orientation should have minimal to no effects on long-term perceptions of their credibility and likability. Viewers with negative LGBQ attitudes provided positive assessments of an openly gay newscaster’s competence, trustworthiness, and likability, and above neutral—yet not by much—feelings of or interest in closeness to the newscaster. The negative attitude group mean scores never topped 6 in any category, the point on the semantic differential scale equivalent to Agree on the Likert scale, but some came close, particularly in credibility for those who received delayed disclosure. This suggests that although those with negative LGBQ attitudes may not be enthused by an openly gay reporter, they can still respect the quality of that person’s work, even if the newscaster is not someone the viewer particularly likes or wants to engage in conversation. Similarly, all of the positive LGBQ attitude groups averaged ratings above 6 across all four videos in the competence, trustworthiness, and likability dimensions, and over 5 for liking, which indicates solid-to-strong support and perceptions. The findings should be especially encouraging for LGBQ newscasters in media markets with large public support for the LGBQ population, as their presence and visibility is welcome from the start. There may be some caution for LGBQ newscasters in more conservative areas, as the findings show viewers in opposition to equal rights and protections for LGBQ people are less accepting of an openly gay newscaster; those participants expressed not only less favorable 113 responses, but negative responses to some evaluative measures. LGBQ newscasters may want to delay disclosure of their sexual orientation as they build credibility and establish a positive professional reputation independent of their identity. This does not mean that they must avoid disclosure altogether, but allowing the impression to become ingrained should weaken recency effects except for anyone who sees sexual orientation as an extremely negative highly diagnostic trait. Potential future research could include LGBQ participants to see if there are different perceptions to disclosure or timing based on a perceiver’s sexual orientation. Newsrooms which cover Pride events know that there is going to be a portion of their audience that abhors the LGBTQ+ community and does not want to see it celebrated. However, Pride celebrations attract crowds and are part of their cities’ current events, and should be featured on the news. Stations should not fear a net loss of viewers as a result of featuring Pride coverage in a broadcast, and it can be good for a member of the LGBTQ+ community to cover the story because they understand the importance of Pride and can conduct interviews and construct scripts in tactful, supportive ways. Identifying the personal connection to the LGBTQ+ community through self-disclosure does not seem to result in negative repercussions, and may even enhance positive reception in some circumstances. Newsroom managers should not be concerned about hiring LGBTQ+ newscasters, nor should they discourage employees who are sexual and gender minorities from being out about who they are; treatment and allowances for public comments and personal life disclosure should be no different than for straight employees. To understand how LGBQ newscasters navigate decisions about disclosure and gain insight into the types of responses they received from the public and their peers following disclosures, a second qualitative study complements this first quantitative study. 114 Study 2 In broadcast news, on-air talent is in the public eye. Determinations about whether to disclose information about one’s personal life, such as revealing LGBTQ+ identity, take into consideration one’s privacy, the privacy of their loved ones, the opinions of management about the image they want presented on their station’s broadcasts, and the opinions of the audience, since viewership numbers affect the ad revenue of stations and their corresponding budgets. This qualitative study used in-depth interviews with more than two dozen openly LGBTQ+11 newscasters to identify the factors involved in their decisions regarding what to share with viewers and how they disclosed, the reactions when they did, their positive and negative experiences being out in a heteronormative society still coming to terms with LGBTQ+ acceptance, and their thoughts about LGBTQ+ visibility and representation in broadcast news. Relevant Literature and Research Questions Steve Gendel became the first LGBTQ+ newscaster to come out on television when he disclosed during a 1993 broadcast. Today, there are more than 100 openly gay newscasters, with more coming out to viewers every year. People in prominent positions as national anchors and correspondents include Gio Benitez, Anderson Cooper, Steve Kornacki, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and Robin Roberts; Maddow is the only one of that group who was publicly out before 2011. A June 2024 Editor & Publisher feature story on NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists said “ it wasn’t until the U.S. Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling that more editors, journalists and other media professionals also came out” (Sillick, 202412, para. 3). 11 While Study 1 emphasized LGBQ newscasters, LGBTQ+ is used here as the sample includes a transgender newscaster. Much of her experience is discussed in a section focused primarily on the TQ+ part of the acronym. There are a few instances that refer only to LGBQ identity; this is deliberate as it relates to sexual orientation. Interviewees who used other acronyms are quoted verbatim. 12 Likely a coincidence as the article makes no mention of it, but the story’s publication date was June 26, 2024, which was the ninth anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling. 115 Newscasters now self-identify as LGBTQ+ during newscasts, in Pride content produced by their stations, in their own station bios and social media posts, and they are sometimes profiled by other media organizations. A May 2024 magazine article, in which an anchor in Minnesota came out after being “a glass closet” for 13 years of his career, noted that broadcast news is “a profession that sometimes might not be welcoming to LGBTQ+ people, in markets where it became tough to be ‘out’” (Stern, 2024, para. 15). Former investigative reporter Mark Pettit released the memoir ANKRBOY in 2024 with the tagline, “Paid to tell the truth. Living a lie.” The back cover advertises his story of “what it was like growing up as a young, closeted TV newscaster.” His June 2024 book tour—coinciding with Pride Month—included appearances on newscasts in several Top 10 media markets, where he talked about losing his anchor job when managers learned he was gay and having to change careers when he couldn’t get another job in news (Shipman, 2024). He told interviewers he wants to “help others, especially younger gay kids [by] becoming the role model that [he] didn’t have,” noting it may be difficult “especially if you’re in a hometown or you’re in a career where you can’t be open” (KCAL, 2024). These examples prompt the following Research Questions: RQ1: What do LGBTQ+ newscasters identify as tipping points that have led to the increase in out newscasters in the past decade? RQ2: How do LGBTQ+ newscasters describe their motivations for disclosure? RQ3: How do LGBTQ+ newscasters describe the factors that encouraged or discouraged disclosure? Questions about disclosure might imply the public is entitled to information about a person’s private life; no one has an obligation to disclose. However, to fully understand why disclosure occurs, scholars must know why it does not. Ideally, disclosure will eventually become a non-issue. If the stigmatization of sexual minorities is eliminated, there will be “nothing socially 116 significant to ‘out’” (Guittar & Rayburn, 2016, p. 354). Gendel’s disclosure came during a science news report about research into possible differences between the brains of gay and straight men. He again self-identified as gay on TV a few months later during the introduction of a report in 1994 about the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion. Garrett Glaser followed suit later that year in an on-air tribute to the founder of the Pediatric AIDS Foundation13 when she died. A reporter in Georgia came out during a 2020 story about restrictions on blood and plasma donations from gay men, identifying his own experience after receiving a request to donate. An anchor in Maine presented an on-air editorial in 2022 about how “Don’t say gay” bills “will hurt kids like me” (Blanchard, 2022). An anchor in Ohio received wide-ranging coverage in 2023 after she mentioned holiday plans to travel to see her girlfriend. These disclosure examples prompt the following Research Questions: RQ4: How do LGBTQ+ newscasters describe their methods of disclosure? RQ5: How do LGBTQ+ newscasters describe viewer responses to their being out? RQ6: How do LGBTQ+ newscasters describe their roles in news coverage of LGBTQ+-related topics? Despite increased acceptance, there is still substantial room for further support from society. Legislation targeting LGBTQ+ equality, especially transgender rights and care, and the prevalence of prejudice toward the LGBTQ+ community demonstrate efforts to stop and reverse progress that has been made. Negative attitudes prompt the following Research Question: RQ7: What do LGBTQ+ newscasters identify as ongoing challenges and opportunities for further increases in visibility and representation? Method The researcher determined the identities of more than 100 LGBTQ+ newscasters through 13 Renamed the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Foundation after her death in 1994. 117 personal professional experience, research of media coverage, station bios, posts on professional social media accounts, and referrals by other newscasters. Using publicly available email addresses as well as personal email addresses for newscasters with pre-existing relationships, the researcher submitted interview requests to 96 newscasters. Three email accounts returned delivery failure messages. Of the 32 newscasters who responded, one declined, two who requested permission from their managers had their requests denied, and four expressed interest but did not respond to follow-up emails. The remaining 25 participated in semi-structured interviews with an interview guide composed of 13 key questions, some with multiple parts. Interviews took place on Zoom between February and May 2024. Conversations lasted between 35 and 95 minutes, with an average length of about 49 minutes. Interviews were recorded and converted to text using Otter.ai transcription software. The researcher listened to each recording and corrected errors made by the artificial intelligence software so all responses were verbatim. The researcher identified and sorted hundreds of quotations thematically. Twenty participants are male. Five are female, including one transgender woman. More than half (16) are White, four are Asian American, three are Black, and two are Hispanic. Fifteen work in the Top 25 Nielsen14 Designated Market Areas (DMAs); of those, eight are in the Top 10. Five work in markets 26-50, and five are in markets outside the Top 50, including three outside the Top 100. Nine are primarily anchors, 11 are primarily news reporters (four specialize in investigative reporting), and five are meteorologists. No sportscasters participated in the study15. Participants’ on-screen experience ranges from two to 42 years, with a mean of 16.3 and a median of 16.0. Only two were active when Steve Gendel became the first newscaster to come 14 Nielsen DMA rankings from the 2022-23 television year (USTVDB, 2022). 15 There are several LGBTQ+ sports writers who make appearances for ESPN and similar national sports broadcasters, as well as play-by-play and color commentators for live games, but the researcher has identified only one openly LGBTQ+ newscaster in a traditional TV sports reporting or anchoring role. 118 out to viewers in 1993. “That's a different time. We certainly needed that back then, and that was a good opportunity. I'm glad he took it,” said the oldest newscaster, Bill, a meteorologist who began his career in the 1980s. Twenty-one of the 25 appeared as on-air talent in 2024. Of the four who did not, two left on-air positions in 2023, one in 2021, and one in 2020. At least 15 are married, some are in relationships, and a few are single (relationship status was not asked). All of the participants are publicly out in some form or fashion. Some self-identified as LGBTQ+ during on-air reports about LGBTQ+-related topics. Many have talked about same-sex spouses or partners during newscasts, and several have participated in special content produced by their stations for Pride Month and National Coming Day (October 11). The newscasters who have not said anything on television that verbally discloses their LGBQ identity have made this information available to viewers in other ways, such as acknowledgements in interviews for other media such as newspapers and magazines, as well as online publications. Most of the station bios of married participants mention their spouses, and many post pictures with their significant others on their professional social media accounts. Short bios on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram pages often include the rainbow flag emoji for thousands of fans to see—a lesbian newscaster with two rainbow flag emojis in her TikTok bio has more than 1.8 million followers on the social media platform. Most of the participants approved using their first names for this study, although some opted for a pseudonym16. Information about specific stations and markets has been removed to protect participant privacy. One condition of IRB approval required the researcher to provide each participant with excerpts of everything written based on their interview data, allowing them to further anonymize any statements they thought might result in potential repercussions. The 16 A participant list of the names used in the study, accompanied by their on-air roles, is available on page 224. 119 researcher attributed a few quotations which spoke negatively about specific individuals, including management, colleagues, or other LGBTQ+ newscasters, to “an anchor” or “a newscaster” rather than to a name, based on conversations during the respective interviews. These anonymized statements were also included in the review process for their respective speakers. Four participants offered clarifications to the context of individual comments, but none requested removal of any of the responses or the names associated with any of their responses. Results Obergefell and Other National Tipping Points More than two-thirds of the interviewees have more than a decade of on-air experience, which means their careers began before the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015 that recognized same-sex marriage in every state and granted the same spousal benefits as in marriages between opposite-sex couples. Many of them referred to that Supreme Court ruling as a major turning point for LGBTQ+ visibility in broadcast news. Larry, an anchor in a major market, elaborated: Over the last probably 10 years, specifically after Obergefell, you've seen an explosion of representation of the industry. I think it's always kind of quietly been there, but I think now people are and have been a lot more forthcoming. Obergefell was the third of three major tipping points identified by several interviewees, following the December 2010 repeal of the armed forces’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and President Barack Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage in May 2012. Charles, who spent two decades in television until 2009 and returned to the air in 2022, said Obama’s “big stamp of approval” was a big push for social and organizational change: “I think from a corporate perspective, if the President of United States were on that side, whatever their concerns were sort of evaporated.” Veteran newscasters said the number of openly gay newsroom employees grew, both on-air talent and other staff, as each person paved the way a little bit further. Bill, a 120 meteorologist with more than 40 years of experience, said enough people have been brave enough to come out that it has opened doors for many: “Obama made that point when the Supreme Court passed marriage. He said, ‘You need to thank the brave men and women who've come out of the closet.’” Steve, another longtime meteorologist who didn’t publicly share anything about his gay identity until nearly 20 years into his career, said newsroom attitudes of acceptance have seen a big shift. He decided to be fully open when he moved to a new station a couple of years after Obergefell. “Compared to 10 years ago, everyone sitting behind me in this newsroom, no one cares about who’s gay. … Ten years ago, it wasn’t like that. It’s happened so fast,” Steve said. Some newscasters identified another major change—within the same decade but without a specific date—as the growth of media representation of the LGBTQ+ community. They cited television shows as well as broadcast news content, specifically the changes in the coverage of Pride from the past’s sensationalized clips of scantily-clad parade participants that “othered” LGBTQ+ revelers to today’s celebrations of the queer community with attention on its members’ successes and challenges. Maria said Pride coverage demonstrates newsrooms’ obvious strides: You can't really go back from that. … You are acknowledging that this is no longer an issue that is purely political, and it's much more. … We have a bigger obligation in the media to get it right, and we also have people in our newsrooms that are personally affected by the stories that we cover. So that felt like a note-turning point in progress. Maria noted the efforts to swing the pendulum back by an “opposite side that is just very loud and very disruptive,” but newsrooms have embraced LGBTQ+ staff and their communities. Several of the newer newscasters who started their careers during the aforementioned tipping points acknowledged how differently their lives could have been. John, an anchor who said he didn’t know of any gay anchors until after he entered the industry, said he sometimes wonders what he would be doing if his career had begun in the 1980s or 1990s: 121 I think if I were a decade behind, I don't know if I would be so open, and that just goes to show you how much we've grown in the last couple of decades when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community. I think about that all the time, how lucky I am and how I get to be as open as I want to be because of people that set the foundation for me. Stephen reported his first on-air story less than two months before the landmark decision. “I think had I started my career [in the years] before Obergefell, I might not have stayed in the industry,” he said. He remembers still being in the closet when he interviewed queer couples and advocates, not even disclosing to any of them because he was worried what others might think: I was like, “I just started TV news. I don't want to get in trouble,” but I chose to do the story because I knew the content. After doing that story, I know I wasn't going to put myself in the story, but telling queer stories made me want to tell my own queer story. He came out later that year and got married the next. He said viewer attitudes seemed to change toward greater acceptance at the perfect time for both his personal life and career. These conversations took place just shy of four years after the landmark Supreme Court decision of Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from employment discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity. Newscasters cannot be fired or disciplined for being LGBTQ, which happened on multiple occasions prior to the ruling. All but one participant began their careers before the Bostock decision, and a couple said they feel comfortable discussing these issues as a result of the ruling. RQ1 asked what the newscasters identify as causes for an increase in publicly out newscasters over the past decade. Major moments included the landmark Supreme Court rulings in Obergefell v. Hodges and Bostock v. Clayton County, which recognized equal rights and protections for LGBTQ+ people, as well as other favorable legislative action, such as the end of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Legal recognitions of relationships have reduced stigma and encouraged LGBTQ+ people to be more open overall. Attitudes about acceptance of LGBTQ+ people have improved, including from prominent political figures such as President 122 Barack Obama. These positions have moved from mere tolerance to allyship and support, and media coverage of LGBTQ+ people and communities have also contributed to greater inclusion. Motivations for Disclosure The newscasters expressed two main motivations for disclosure. The first was wanting to be accepted equally as their straight peers, which means not having to hide. If a female anchor is able to acknowledge her husband, her male co-anchor should be able to equally acknowledge his husband. This motivation was primarily focused internally, being able to live without shame or stigma; it was not about saying “I’m a gay person” but just “I’m a person.” Arch and Mike compared being LGBTQ+ to being left-handed; straight and right-handed people make up an overwhelming majority of the world, but there is nothing wrong or unusual about either. They said they want openness about someone’s sexual orientation to be no different than openness about which hand is dominant. Nineteen of the 25 interviewees used the words “authentic” or “authenticity”—with a twentieth referring to the “whole true self”—in their comments about the importance of finding comfort in one’s identity and acceptance in one’s surroundings. The second key motivation to disclose was to be a visible representative of the LGBTQ+ community. Many interviewees said they wanted to use their positions as public figures to reach members of the viewing audience. Jason, a Black meteorologist, argued that there is still a large gap between majority and minority groups in multiple categories, including racial and sexual, and visibility can help close those gaps. “It is still quite important that visibility is shared and delivered and presented no matter the industry, no matter the sector, because it still means something to someone,” Jason said. The specific people many of the newscasters in this study hope to reach through their visibility can be sorted into five particular groups, some of which overlap: other LGBTQ+ newscasters, LGBTQ+ youth, the families of LGBTQ+ youth, other 123 LGBTQ+ viewers, and straight viewers. Many of the newscasters mentioned multiple groups, although Larry, a morning anchor, said his disclosure was for him alone: “Me saying I'm gay, who does that benefit?” He said on-air talk about his life was not intended to benefit viewers, as “The people that need to know are the individuals with whom I choose to be in a relationship.” Visibility of and for Other LGBTQ+ Newscasters Many participants said they hope their visibility as out public figures will be encouraging for other newscasters to follow suit. They want to show that it is possible to succeed in the industry while living authentically. Several said they did not have that type of example for them as a youth or early in their career, but as a few began to come forward, doors opened for many. Bill was the first of the 25 participants to enter the industry—before more than half of the others were born—and said that as an adolescent the only media representation he had of a “normal person being gay” was the September 8, 1975, issue of Time. The cover featured a picture of Air Force Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich beneath the headline “’I Am a Homosexual’: The Gay Drive for Acceptance”. Bill recalled people making fun of Matlovich, the first openly gay person on the cover of an American magazine (Miller, 2015), who publicly came out in a fight against the military’s ban on LGBTQ+ service members. Bill said a few celebrities from his childhood, such as retired NFL running back Dave Kopay and musician Elton John, came out in the 1970s, but not regular people. Charles, one of the three other participants older than 50, said, “The problem I had is there were none [in news] in the generation older than I am that were out. The only [folks on TV] were all kind of clowns, entertainers [like] Paul Lynde.” Although none of the interviewees identified the 1993 and 1994 on-air disclosures by Steve Gendel and Garrett Glaser as influential moments, the 1990s did not end without a 124 significant turning point for some. E! News anchor Steve Kmetko came out in a March 1999 interview with The Advocate, following the murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard in October 1998. Travis was just about to start his career and said Kmetko’s disclosure was big: I knew I was gay. I was just constantly like, “How do I live a life? Can I come out? Can I be gay and still have a life that's not destroyed or ruined?” I was just constantly like, “Well, that person has a life,” and I remember very distinctly, “Oh, he has a life and a career.” He comes to mind as an example of someone who can do it and did do it. Travis believes he provided a similar example for the next generation of newscasters. He enjoys visiting high schools and talking to classes about his job and life, and he has received messages years later from teens now working in news, stating, “I remember when you came to talk my high school, and you didn't change pronouns. I saw a path forward for me.” Don Lemon’s 2011 memoir Transparent was a major influence for a few participants, particularly the Black men. Others cited Anderson Cooper’s 2012 confirmation as important. There was some division among the 17 who were already in the industry at the time of Cooper’s acknowledgement, as it was not really a secret and some felt it overdue. Dante offered a defense: I know Anderson has been criticized for maybe waiting too long according to some people to come out, but I just think that it's such a personal thing, so who am I to judge someone for when they decide to do it? Randy said he appreciated and tried to emulate how Cooper handled his disclosure: I know that it was a big deal, but he just didn't say anything about it for years and years and years. He lives his life. You know, he adopts children and does his own thing. It seems, from where I'm sitting, that [coming out] has impacted his life very little. He's kept moving forward, hasn't lost any type of his mojo. He's still a highly respected journalist and is living his life. I think that’s a great thing. Interviewees said confirmation from newscasters who may have been subject to speculation and gossip about their sexual orientation should not be seen as confessions or ways to end rumors, but a use of their platform to benefit others. Steve pointed to meteorologist Sam Champion, who came out to the New York Times in its story on MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts’s same-sex wedding: 125 Everyone in New York knew he was gay—everyone in the gay community knew he was gay. … If I would tell my straight family members he was gay, they'd be like, no, no, no, he's not. When he came out, I really do think he was the first big visible thing. And he was doing it at a national level, which is even more impressive. He came out when he was already with Good Morning America, I believe. Now you're talking to half the country who might not be as comfortable as you know, New York City. Sean said—and he’s personally told Champion this—he remembers being 12 and watching the meteorologist and not knowing. The only gay people in media he knew were tropes like Billy Crystal’s character on Soap and Tom Hanks’s character in Philadelphia: “I look back and I think, had there been out people—like if Sam Champion would have been out, would I have gotten it sooner in my life? Yeah, it would have helped a little bit.” Those revelations by national anchors like Lemon, Cooper, and Champion came from folks well-established in their careers, people already at the “pinnacle” of news, as Dante and Tim described it. Most did not see out newscasters at the level of local news in which they would have careers—at least not in the smaller and medium markets where most start. “I remember less than 20 years ago, wondering, how am I going to do this, because I didn't really see a whole lot of LGBTQ+ representation,” Dante said. Stephen said it was hard to identify queer journalists, while John said he didn’t see anyone gay with whom he could identify. Those comments came from people looking for queer role models on their televisions, but as Erica noted, in some cases future newscasters were unaware that visibility was so meaningful until it appeared: I didn't realize how nice or how important it is to see someone who represents me. We hear that, right, and I didn't realize it or feel it or really hone in on it until I started seeing gay folks on TV. Some of the newscasters also shared past concerns that although there was a small but growing number of openly gay newscasters on a national level, they feared loneliness or isolation in their newsrooms as the only gay person. This turned out to be the case for a few at their first stations in small starter markets, but most discovered these fears were unfounded as they met people who 126 may not have been out to the public but were out to others in the newsrooms. “Once you get into the business, you realize how many gay people there are as newscasters. It's kind of funny, once you enter the world, you're like, ‘Oh, he was gay. He was gay. Oh,’” John said. There were also plenty of producers and others who worked behind the scenes, including in management. “Once I learned how many people are not only gay, but out in news, there was a lot more comfort in knowing that this is just kind of how it is,” Jonas added. Tim said he didn’t know of any other gay newscasters during his time at his first two stations, so he turned to peers who were young Black and gay professionals in other fields for guidance about how they navigated the work-life balance in and later out of the closet. He later discovered that he already knew another gay newscaster who was also looking for others: He disclosed to me that he was gay. It's funny, because we were both pretending around each other, and then he finally came out because he was tired of hiding, and then it gave me the courage to say, “Okay, well, you know, I'm gay, too, but I'm not really telling people.” He kept my secret. Several participants mentioned gay newscasters they met at particular stations as mentors and role models, some of whom were out publicly while others were not. The interviewees encourage aspiring newscasters and those climbing the professional ladder to do research about who in a particular market may be gay and learn about their experiences. Jonas, a meteorologist, took note of the experiences of other gay meteorologists—including current U.S. Congressman Eric Sorensen—who worked in the same medium-sized Midwest market prior to Jonas’s time there: Just knowing that there were at least two people who have been in the same position that I was in, there was some comfort in knowing, well, they got out of it. … Knowing that they continued on with their lives, that that gave me confidence of knowing that any type of issues that would have come up, people have done it before me. Jonas said Sorensen served as someone he could look to for guidance, and hopes that by also being open, he can set an example and offer similar advice for others. Some of the disclosures from fellow newscasters came as surprises even to people with 127 whom they previously interacted. Megan interned at MSNBC and was stunned in March 2013: I'd watch the Today show, and I watched as Jenna Wolfe came out. It was this moment where she was like, “I'm gay, and my girlfriend, Steph Gosk, is having a baby with me.” Steph Gosk, I had known from NBC News as well. I'm like, “Oh. My. God.” Robin Roberts wasn't out at this point. So many different people were not out, even at that point. … I remember that being just a huge moment for me, because Jenna Wolfe is the weekend morning anchor of the Today show. That changed everything for me, because it literally gave me a goal. It gave me the path I wanted to take. … It was just a huge moment for me and if there is any way —it doesn't compute in my brain—but if there's any way I could ever do what Jenna Wolfe did for me, that would be amazing. Megan’s comments show a chain reaction can occur when newscasters see more of their peers come out. She was one of seven interviewees who named Roberts as a role model. Roberts came out in 2013 in a Facebook post that mentioned her “longtime girlfriend, Amber.” Good Morning America, ABC News, Entertainment Tonight, and the New York Times were among the outlets that featured Roberts’s September 2023 wedding to her partner of 18 years. Dante observed: She is someone who has been a fixture on our TVs for decades now, and she is someone who I think is just universally adored and loved. I think that somebody like her coming out, I hope can open minds and open hearts for a lot of people. Randy noted that Roberts “getting married on TV wouldn’t have happened a decade ago.” Other examples of LGBTQ+ newscaster role models were limited, especially for women. In addition to Roberts, Maddow, Wolfe, and Gosk, the only other lesbian cited specifically was Megan, who Maria mentioned. Bill, who has been in the industry for more than 40 years, said he is not aware of any openly lesbian meteorologists. Some interviewees who said they didn’t have LGBTQ+ newscasters to look up to named non-news media figures, such as Ellen DeGeneres. Erica said the main role model who paved the way for her is her wife. Others mentioned friends or folks in their social circles, but for a few, like Jackie, there were no such options: There wasn't really a person to look up to. I wasn't seeing a person reflected—it wasn’t only in my immediate media circle, but also my circle of peers—who I wanted to be and what I could become. I just thought, “I will just keep it slow and low, and I will conform and that'll be fine.” I did that for a long time. 128 This emphasizes the impact of visible LGBTQ+ newscasters on each other, current and future. Mike said the relatively small size of the industry means LGBTQ+ newscasters often know others, and while he doesn’t know if the large number now comfortable being publicly out is attributable to society changing or a case of reaching critical mass, it’s been rewarding to see: Seeing so many other people that have done it (come out publicly) that we know, or are friends of friends, and having a relatively good go of it—I think it's really exciting, and it's almost starting to feel like we're headed to a place where it doesn't matter anymore. Visibility for LGBTQ+ Youth Some of the newscasters want to be role models for children and teens. Others don’t have that as a goal but realize they may still fulfill that role because of their presence as public figures, so they still want to set a good example. Dante, a morning anchor in a Top 25 market, said many families might have him on as parents tune in for the weather, news updates, and event previews: There could be a little boy or little girl or whatever, watching me getting ready for school, and maybe having doubts or questions or being confused or something. I thought to myself, if maybe me coming out and just kind of standing in my truth—not even that I have to do a huge “I'm gay” announcement on television—but to mention things like Pride or other things that come up. I think that it sort of normalizes it. John, another morning anchor, said he realized from a young age that he was gay but he didn’t see any gay role models in general, let alone journalists, which was what he wanted to be. I think it's important to have visibility and to show the younger generation that we're here and we're not going anywhere. We’re in every position that you can imagine, every occupation, doctor (his husband’s profession), journalist, waiter, that we're all over. Even Larry, who said he does not talk about his sexual orientation for the benefit of others, acknowledged there may be viewers who see him as a positive example because he is gay: I may not think that it has an impact, but it might for a kid that's watching us in a more rural area, or an area or community that may be not as accepting, but gets to see, you know, two Black male anchors—gay anchors, too—on air every single day, I can imagine for them that that probably has an impact. Charles, who is Hispanic, noted differences between the visibility of identity in some minority 129 groups and the invisibility of sexual minorities, which can lead to parents unknowingly discriminating against their own children: It’s very unlikely you’re going to hear your family go off in some derogatory way about being [their race], but if you’re a gay kid, you may experience that. … Those are the reasons why people my age need to come out, so that that kid doesn’t have that shame. Randy, an evening anchor in a small market in the south, said he never hesitated to talk about his husband or adopted son. He “put it all out there” for youth living in difficult situations: The more people who do that make it much easier for these kids that live in rural areas that have no role models, and live in families where they are likely and probably [are] being bullied or being put into boxes that they shouldn't be because of their sexuality. Before leaving news for a marketing position in 2022, he thought long and hard about staying in the industry because of the positive impact he could have on the community through his on-air platform. Randy was public on air and online about his 2019 cancer diagnosis—calling himself “an idiot” three times for ignoring signs in a piece which concluded with “Don’t be an idiot”—and returned in April 2024 to fill in for a former co-anchor as she receives cancer treatment. In departures and returns, he makes sure to mention his family. “People have approached me, teenagers have come to me and said, ‘It's easier for me to deal with my family because they watch you on the news.’ It happened regularly, and that was one of the greatest things.” Visibility for Families of LGBTQ+ Youth The interviews for this study did not ask participants to talk about coming out to their families or friends, but a few mentioned that some family members did not respond well. Several talked about the hostile home environments in which many LGBTQ+ youth live, although these comments should not be interpreted as indicative of their own experiences. Megan suggested that many parents who hold negative attitudes about gay people are not prepared for the possibility their child may be gay, or how to respond supportively when confronted with such information: 130 There's a really likely chance that a straight couple will have a gay son or daughter, and will know them and love them unconditionally for 18 years, or however long, and think they're this perfect specimen, and then realize something about them that they've been told is bad. While it takes time for many of those parents to come to terms with that or to understand it, hopefully, there was a basis of love and empathy there, and a connection that is more easily to be made. There are just the family dynamics and how coming out works in the LGBTQ community. She said empathy is essential for equal rights, and that creating connections and achieving acceptance within families has had a major impact in “swinging the pendulum in the direction” of support for LGBTQ+ people, organizations, and legal equality. Stephen shared a personal example of this happening when he told his parents he is gay. He said they talked about the LGBTQ+ community in a particular way before he came out to them “because they thought they weren't connected or impacted in some way. I think when you come out it's like, ‘Oh, okay, so these stories are talking about people like you.’” Mike came out to everyone in his life upon moving to a new station, and found connections within the company outside of the newsroom. Interactions with several people on his station’s corporate side included a man who has two LGBTQ+ daughters. After a few months, that colleague said, “I just want to let you know that I think it's really great how open you are about who you are and every aspect of your life, but also how you just say it.” The man told Mike that the confidence with which he acknowledged being gay, but didn’t make a big deal out of it, put people at ease. “That, in my mind, was always sort of what I was going for,” Mike said. Tim has made multiple on-air mentions about being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, which he said is never to make himself specifically visible, but to be a representative of the community and communicate to families that “if my child is a part of this community, it will be okay, because these are examples of success and people living and thriving.” Arch discussed coming out to his parents in a pair of media interviews, leading some viewers to ask questions about how they might best handle a response to a child coming out—advice he is 131 happy to try to help offer. Several newscasters shared stories of families reaching out to let them know their public LGBTQ+ visibility made a difference. Bill relayed messages from both parents and children: We had people that were like, “you coming out saved our family, because we were wrestling with this with our daughter, or our son, and [you] showed us that successful people are gay and people that we bring into our home every day. … We’re okay with this. If you’re doing it, we’re okay with this.” That's the payoff. That's the paid forward is to help somebody else's journey. … I think you're just gonna go up against the people that find it morally reprehensible for whatever reason, but it might also encourage some of their family to say, “You may not like Bill anymore [now that you know he’s gay], but I'm the same way,” and then they go, “Maybe I should rethink that [negative attitude].” He emphasized that through more disclosures, everyone will eventually realize that someone they care about is gay, which “becomes a real softener and much more of a talking point.” Travis got emails and was even approached in public by parents whose children came out to them; because they had a favorable impression of him, they responded well to their children. He said one father wrote, “I didn’t know any gay people and I ‘met’ you on TV, and I thought, ‘I really like this guy,’ and then my son came out to me and I knew how to sort of be with him.” Several newscasters talked about the emails and Facebook comments from families that came specifically in response to posts or on-air comments made about significant others, Pride, or LGBTQ+-related coverage, but an anecdote from Jonas showed the lasting impression that LGBTQ+ newscaster visibility can have, independent from any LGBTQ+-themed content. When viewers learned he was departing their medium-sized city in the Midwest—where he was the only out newscaster in the market—to move to a major metropolis, “the number of messages from people or parents of queer kids who are like, ‘No, you made this so much easier the last few years,’ was incredible.” The gratitude was mutual, as he posted a message on social media which thanked LGBTQ+ viewers for making it easier for him to be openly gay and visible to everyone. 132 Visibility for LGBTQ+ Viewers As LGBTQ+ people strive for acceptance and representation, several of the newscasters talked about the importance of showing LGBTQ+ viewers they have a voice and a face in their local media. David, who works in a small market outside the Top 100, shared, “Within LGBT situations, me being open, a lot of people have said, ‘Wow, it's nice to see somebody in this community, in such a public light, and be so open,’ and say things like, ‘You're inspirational.’” Steve, who did not come out to viewers until his fourth market despite three of them being in the Top 25, said viewers have told him that he's “been a positive influence on them to come out or to be comfortable.” Disclosure to LGBTQ+ viewers has also served to strengthen the connection between them and the newscasters. It’s been a two-way street for some folks, as people they knew reciprocated the disclosure. Jackie said many people disclosed to her once she came out: I think it was part that they knew that I could keep a secret, and probably that I was accessible as well [as] I was on all the [social media] platforms. I was surprised by that. I was surprised by how many people told me in confidence that they were also queer. She said several of those individuals watched with interest to see the community reaction to her public disclosure, as it could help them “judging their own safety and their own comfort in coming out.” While disclosure was never a ploy to pander to LGBTQ+ viewers, it can convey to them that they have journalists in certain newsrooms who value them and their stories—which can have the added benefit of attracting that audience. Erica learned that a friend-of-a-friend liked watching her reports because she saw another lesbian on TV. “I know for a fact that being gay made the LGBT community where I am tune into our station above the others,” Randy said. Visibility for Straight Viewers Many of the newscasters hope their visibility will help reduce prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, both by presenting likable gay people and by demonstrating to straight viewers how normal—and similar—their lives are. Just as some of these messages were directly intended for 133 family members to accept of their queer relatives, the goal is to be accepting of all LGBTQ+ individuals. Stephen said he thinks many viewers “assume that there couldn't possibly be a queer person in my workplace, or at my church, or on my TV.” Some of the ways the newscasters attempt to be relatable is having on-air discussions of issues that affect gay and straight families alike. John’s husband has children from a previous marriage: I’ve mentioned my stepchildren, because [he] came with two children, and blended families would be in my DMs and say, “Thank you so much for speaking up to those of us that are the stepparents to someone else's kid.” Parenthood has been central to Travis’s life—a Father’s Day feature about his family in his city’s newspaper revealed he told his now-husband on their first date that not having kids was a deal breaker—and celebrated the births of his three children with viewers. Viewers grieved with them when one of their twins tragically died, a story Travis still shares to help others deal with loss: The most powerful way I could make change was to be the realist to me in all settings, and so that meant being the dorky dad on TV, who you know and love and wake up to at 4:30 in the morning—but also happens to be married to another man—and [they can say], “Look he's just as tired and boring as we are.” That kind of goes a long way. David’s husband is in the National Guard and currently deployed, so he has spoken about military families dealing with members overseas. They are also trying to expand their family, and when his station did a story about adoption challenges, he offered a personal perspective: In our cross talk I said you'd be amazed at how expensive it is to go through that and just the hoops that go through it. I talked about the crisis of how many kids are in foster care in our community and how our caseworker was retiring, and they weren't going to hire another person. … It was chaos, basically, is how our caseworker described. I like to talk about that, because it shows that I'm going through the same struggles you are at home. Same-sex adoption has been legal in David’s state since 2008 and nationwide since 2016, but it wasn’t legal in Charles’s state when he and his husband adopted their daughter. “We had to leave the state and then we had to stay out long enough for the adoption to be finalized, in that case in Kansas, before we brought her back,” he said. Charles spoke publicly and wrote several op-ed 134 pieces about the challenges they faced, knowing that came with risk: As a reasonably public person at the time, there was a possibility that they could have made an example out of us and taken her away from us. Issues like that were things that I was talking about and writing about. A Responsibility to Be Out? All interviewees were asked to consider the following examples of calls from LGBTQ+ newscasters, for LGBTQ+ newscasters, to make themselves visible: 1. From Charles Perez in his 2010 memoir, Confessions of a Gay Anchorman: “It's time for the Andersons and the Shepards …17 and the Sams, if they are gay, to just stop playing this stupid and damaging game.” 2a. From Rachel Maddow in a 2011 interview published by The Guardian: “I'm sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they're doing what they're doing, but I do think that if you're gay you have a responsibility to come out." 2b. In a blog post hours after The Guardian story18, Maddow added the disclaimer: “If and when we feel that we can.”19 Interviewees were deeply divided in their opinions about the responsibility or imperative for LGBTQ+ newscasters and other public figures to be out. Some felt a personal responsibility but acknowledged that there is not—and should not—be a standard for everyone across the industry. While all 25 participants in this study felt safe and comfortable coming out, they recognize that every individual’s circumstances are different. Travis emphasized the personal choice involved: I don't want to presume what is the right choice for anyone else. I can say that it was definitely the right choice and remains the right choice for me. I would applaud anyone 17 Perez named a fourth prominent newscaster about whom there has long been speculation and online discussion. Unlike Anderson Cooper, Shepard Smith, and Sam Champion, this person has not commented on their personal life so their name has been omitted. 18 Maddow’s post came after several major media outlets interpreted her comments “as a specific direction to Anderson Cooper” (NLGJA, 2011, para. 2). Her post explicitly stated “I wasn't asked about Anderson Cooper, I didn't say anything about him, he literally was never discussed during the interview at all -- even implicitly. … Although criticism of Mr. Cooper was intimated by The Guardian and picked up everywhere -- I did not make that criticism in the interview, nor did I imply it, nor is it what I believe” (Maddow, 2011, para. 1 and 5). 19 This excerpt was part of Maddow’s three “basic beliefs about the ethics of coming out,” which include: 1. Gay people -- generally speaking -- have a responsibility to our own community and to future generations of gay people to come out, if and when we feel that we can. 2. We should all get to decide for ourselves the "if and when we feel that we can" part of that. 135 who is able to and can and wants to, but I would never say that anybody has a responsibility to do that. A slight majority of the more than two-dozen interviewees were opposed to the suggestion of disclosure being something LGBTQ+ public figures like themselves ought to do. Those in opposition to that “onus” argued that there is no need for a newscaster to share any part of their personal lives. “I think that there's often this mysterious burden on queer people to reveal themselves,” Stephen said. He said the push for people to identify themselves during the AIDS crisis was understandable—several journalists who contracted the disease came forward before their deaths—but without a specific “greater purpose,” no one should feel compelled to do so. Maria pointed to the when of Perez’s and Maddow’s comments—made more than a decade ago—before many stations started to produce Pride content that began to make the LGBTQ+ community feel more included in news content. She said it might have been more urgent for newscasters to have been out then, before the coverage of LGBTQ+ matters improved: I think part of that is taking back the narrative. If the only time that we see representation is in either the villainization or the… loudest voices in the room, if they're the only ones that have control over who we are as people, then we've lost control of it entirely. Maria said it still is important for people to be out publicly, especially public figures, as this part of their identity is “part of a greater national dialogue.” She questioned the “obligation” for anyone to share their personal business, “but I understand where it’s coming from.” Steve noted how public figures get treated differently when it comes to discussions about the responsibility of making one’s self visible. Separate from television, he favors everyone taking their own journey at their own pace in coming out decisions. However, as a public figure: “It is a powerful thing to be gay and to let everyone know about it. I like embracing the power that it has, and understanding how powerful it is to do that, not just for you, but for everyone.” Several other newscasters who emphasized the importance of privacy also admitted to 136 being “conflicted,” as Andy termed it, when people are in a position to be able to safely come out and use their platform to provide representation to people in need of it. Andy elaborated: Because we're still in a stage in our country, where LGBTQ folks are demonized. … I think sometimes I feel like I do have more of a responsibility to put myself out there a little bit more. It's tough, because I don't want anyone to ever feel pressure, just because you're in a high-ranking position or high visibility position that you should be doing it. That feeling of a personal responsibility was a common theme among several newscasters. They stressed that others don’t need to feel the same obligation to be open, but they feel a duty to their community to be visible. Dante talked about how deeply personal it is to come out. Everyone has their own story, and he doesn’t want to tell anyone else that they need to share their story. “I just felt like for me in my little corner of the world. I wanted to and I felt like I needed to; I feel like it was my responsibility,” Dante said. Mike feels a responsibility to push back against prejudice: The politicization—turning gender identity and sexuality into politics—seems to be amped up more recently. That gets into another reason to do it. … I feel a responsibility personally, yes. But I would not assign that responsibility to somebody who grew up in a different socioeconomic class or didn't have the support of family or lived in an area where it was physically dangerous to do so. Megan also talked about the circumstances that have allowed her to be open, personally and professionally, as predecessors paved the way for her and she hopes to do the same for others: I feel a big responsibility, because I feel like to get to where I am, so many people had to be out had to give me grace, in certain ways had to help me out in any way, shape, or form. I personally feel that responsibility to own up to who I am in every way, shape or form, because to me, it feels like that is the way that I can help the world by just being myself. … I am also in such a privileged position to be able to say that. Some in favor of disclosure, including Jonas, delineated a difference between the concepts of “responsibility” and “requirement.” They maintain that disclosure is something that people should do, but not something they must do: We have that responsibility as very visible people in places that we cover. I think it incentivizes us to be good community members, to be that representation in our community, because it will unlock other doors for the people that we try to serve every single day. There will be a trust factor that's built in there because people will be able to 137 either relate to us or appreciate that we're bringing our whole true self to every single broadcast. … It shouldn't be a requirement, but it should be something we are always striving towards. We shouldn't try to hide that aspect of our lives from our communities. Several participants latched onto the importance of Maddow’s disclaimer. “I like ‘If and when we can come out,’” Tim said. He argued that people who are out in every aspect of their lives except for TV have “the responsibility to live out proud” when it comes to viewers as well: I feel like, if you're out, and you continue to just kind of [say], “Well, I don't really want to show it on social media. I don't really want to display it in the public.” Then you're doing our community a disservice, if you're already out. John talked about the shift from the late 1990s and early 2000s when there seemingly had to be announcements or presentations of “I’m here, I’m gay,” such as Ellen DeGeneres in Time in 1997, to today’s environment when people can make subtle references or “drop hints here and there.” Like Maddow, he believes that when people can, they should. “When you have the opportunity, and you feel comfortable, I think it is important to reveal yourself,” John said. Several interviewees brought up the recruitment appeal issued by Harvey Milk in the San Francisco politician’s “That’s What America Is” speech from Gay Freedom Day in 1978. He called on people to come out to their parents, their relatives, their friends, their neighbors, their co-workers, and “the people who work where you eat and shop … and who know you” in order to “break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions” (Tracey, 2022). Milk implored all gay people to end their silence, a commission that still resonates with newscasters like Bill: When more and more people come out, then everyone realizes they have a favorite uncle or niece or kid or a father or somebody in their life is gay, somebody that they care about is gay. When you get to that point, then that becomes a real softener, and much more of a talking point. Charles said it is important to respect where people are in their individual lives, but that when they don’t come forward, “there's also some level of allowing the shame to be perpetuated.” He believes it is incumbent for anyone who can do so to make themselves visible, as long as it 138 doesn’t endanger them to do so: If everybody just sort of came out and said, “Here I am,” every single family would suddenly realize that they have gay family members. Businesses would realize it. It wouldn't be such a big giant weird secret then, and maybe we could get on the other side of it. … It doesn't mean you have to make some declarative statement, but just be who you are without hiding it. The Double Standard A consensus among the 25 newscasters is that any expectations or requests for LGBTQ+ newscasters to be open and publicly discuss or display information about their orientation or identity is a double standard, since there is no such expectation for heterosexual newscasters to do the same. Randy elaborated: “I appreciate the human contract, we all need to help each other, I get that, but straight people don't have to talk about their sex life. There is no reason I should have to talk about it at all.” While Randy regularly talked about his family on air, it was because he wanted to, not out of obligation to anyone. Several interviewees notably used the term “announce” when talking about their straight peers, and how those colleagues don’t have to announce their straight or heterosexual identity. In addition to not having to “announce their straightness,” Stephen pointed out that straight people are also not asked to “defend their straightness.” He highlighted how the announcement alone is often insufficient, and prompts additional follow-ups. There is no need to bring up heterosexuality, and no judgment if an opposite-sex partner or interest comes up in conversation. Dante said this issue is not exclusive to news. He said it is a double standard for LGBTQ+ people to come out at all, while straight people do not have to say they are straight: I feel like it’s a societal burden that LGBTQ+ folks bear, and that is sort of part of what sets us apart from straight people. I think with every kind of mainstream group, there's privilege, and so I think that's hetero privilege to not have to make an announcement or anything like that. 139 RQ2 asked about individual newscasters’ motivations for disclosure. Several said they wanted to have their same-sex relationships recognized the same as their straight colleagues. They did not want to be treated any differently or feel compelled to conceal part of their identity—some said they were tired of hiding or pretending to be straight. Some said their openness was simply about equality, without any intent to communicate a particular message to anyone. Many interviewees said their platform in a prominent profession allowed them to show audiences positive examples of LGBTQ+ people. They said they wanted current and future LGBTQ+ newscasters that it they can be publicly out and still be successful. As the number of openly LGBTQ+ newscasters increases, more viewers can be reached—and the uncommonness or uniqueness of a queer newscaster will go away. Interviewees said they hope to be role models for LGBTQ+ youth that they did not have growing up, and to reach the families of these youth as a source of encouragement for acceptance and support. Newscasters said they want to be visible for others in the LGBTQ+ community to let them know that they are represented in newsrooms by someone who will voice their shared values in news coverage. Finally, some said they want to be visible to straight viewers, to show that LGBTQ+ people can be credible, likable, and relatable. Being in a respected role and welcomed into tens of thousands of homes can show that there are far more similarities between LGBTQ+ and cisgender heterosexual people than differences. Increased visibility and presence lead to increased normalization. Factors that Discourage and Encourage Disclosure While all 25 of the newscasters interviewed for this study are publicly out, most have not been out their full careers. They cited a variety of factors that discouraged disclosure earlier in their careers, as well as other things that led to or played a role in their eventual disclosure. More than half talked about the intersection of LGBTQ+ identity with other identities, such as race, 140 gender, and gender expression, and how stereotypes about those can intersect with LGBTQ+ identity, potentially prompting viewer biases tied to multiple traits. Although most voiced concerns about audience acceptance and career advancement, several stressed there are LGBTQ+ newscasters who are out in their personal and professional lives whose decision to keep their queer identity private is not due to shame or concern about provoking any reactions. While some LGBTQ+ newscasters want to be visible representatives for their community, Tim said some of his colleagues prefer to stay silent—but that doesn’t mean they are closeted: I do have coworkers that are out but have chosen not to make that part of their platform, too. Not because they're scared, that's just their choice. They said, “No, I'm not gonna include that. People who know, know, and people who don't, that's okay, too. All 25 newscasters agreed that no one should be judged for not making themselves visible. They said it is up to each individual to decide what’s best for them. Travis elaborated: Be who you are. Sometimes that means not coming out, sometimes that means not disclosing because some people are very private. Don't let someone force you to disclose or share or do things. It's about who you are and who you want to be and what you can bring to journalism and bring to your community. Family Privacy Several newscasters said one reason to withhold information about their personal lives from viewers is the same as some of their straight peers: the privacy of partners and children. Stephen said he weighed the privacy of his husband during his internal debate about whether or not to be publicly out, as “that decision doesn't just impact me, it impacts him too.” Others said they maintain separate public and private social media pages to respect requests from spouses to not be included in professional posts. These choices are not to conceal LGBTQ+ identity. Charles said he took the lead of others at the station, and observed that their spouses don’t appear on professional Facebook or Instagram pages. Sean will talk about his husband on television but avoids saying his name, and never posts pictures of him or other loved ones. “It is a public 141 forum, I've chosen to be a public figure, I am happy when I put things out there,” he said. “I leave my actual significant others off of my social media, because they did not choose to be a public figure.” Another newscaster said they avoided coming out professionally at one point because they were in a relationship with someone who was still in the closet to their family, and “the last thing I’d want to do is out [them].” Outings Outings were a concern for several interviewees, especially regarding the discussion about a potential responsibility for making themselves visible. There were worries whether such an expectation might result in a newscaster feeling compelled to come out of the proverbial closet before they were ready, or even being “outed” by someone else. Pete Williams was one of the earliest publicly known gay newscasters when he joined NBC News in 1993 following four years as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Michelangelo Signorile of The Advocate outed Williams, midway through the latter’s tenure as a civilian working for the military, in a report tied to restrictions on gays in the military (Signorile, 1991). Some of the study’s participants said there needs to be no pressure on anyone to disclose when they do not want to, such as an assumption of participation by LGBTQ+ employees in station content produced for Pride Month. While reporting on LGBTQ+-related issues may present opportunities to self-disclose—the very first on-air disclosures in 1993 and 1994 had the encouragement of managers and many more have since then—just because others have done so doesn’t make it the right time for everyone. Jackie, who recently moved from an anchor position to a managerial role, fears that feeling a need to associate one’s self with a story could: Put a deadline on the time that they have to come out, or they have to disclose publicly to all of their viewers and all of their friends and family, and everybody else who's ever known them or thought they knew them. Larry, who has talked on TV about the beginnings and endings of relationships, noted that nosy 142 viewers who want to know about his and his co-anchors’ personal lives is just something that comes with the celebrity of being a TV personality. However, there are instances of openly gay newscasters being asked about others who are not public about their orientation. Keeping the secret means lying in response to what Tim said are inappropriate questions: It gets very uncomfortable for someone who is out when you have a straight person asking, “Well, is so and so? Is so and so?” It's not my place, and so I am always in an awkward position of where I'm trying to figure out, do I say something? Or if I don't say something, is that the answer as well? I've been in those situations, too, and it's never a good feeling. Stephen said he thinks people worry about being outed more than coming out, because “if the announcement is taken out of your control, that’s a whole other beast… The freedom and choice to share a personal story could be taken away if someone outs them.” While he never felt pressure to come out, he is aware of others who have, and said it’s “basically like we’re back in high school again, and we’re trying to out people.” He also mentioned concerns about using LGBTQ+ dating sites due to fears a viewer could see a newscaster’s profile and report them. After a bad breakup, an ex-boyfriend of Andy threatened to contact his news director and out him: “It bothered me for a little bit and ultimately, he didn't do it, but I just remember thinking that that was not cool.” Charles’s ex followed through on such a threat, sharing information not only with his station’s management but also everyone in Charles’s contact list. The negative publicity turned into an initial demotion that dominoed into his eventual firing. Many of the newscasters have participated in Pride parades in recent years, with stations live-streaming the festivities and even sponsoring floats, but there was a time when attendance carried a risk. Tom shared a story about a peer who was not out in the newsroom but went to a Pride event on his personal time. A station photographer spotted him and recorded video: “Next thing he knows people are sharing that video around the newsroom, titillated about it,” Tom said. Some of the staff were suspended, but there was no way for the man to return to the closet. 143 Steve successfully hid his sexual orientation from many coworkers for nearly a decade, disclosing to only his closest confidantes. That came to an end three years into his tenure at his third station, when an anchor said something during a newscast. It wasn’t his shift and he wasn’t even at the station at the time, but the gossip about him spread quickly among the staff and it wasn’t long before word made its way back to him about what his colleague had done: He had an open mic. It was a commercial break. Thank God, it didn't go out over the air, but it did go out to the whole newsroom. I just walked into work one day—and obviously, all the girls knew, I was best friends with all the girls—and I just remember one of them pulling me aside and saying, “Hey, I gotta talk to you, something happened this morning.” I immediately knew what it was. I was like, “Who outed me?” I literally remember saying that. It was a good friend of mine. He wasn't doing it to hurt me, he was just having a conversation about me. Steve said it was the most humiliating day of his life because everyone learned his secret—but it turned into the best day of his life because no one cared. “I was the only one that had a problem with it.” He said he learned a great lesson that people are usually going to know things about you, and if you don’t talk about yourself, people will still talk about you. “They're going to find out eventually figure out. [Decide] now how you want to go about letting people know because they're going to find out, it's just a matter of time, or you're going to live a tortured life.” He said being open and honest meant he no longer had to live two lives, and his life became much easier. He was open to new coworkers upon arriving at his next station, but that was on his own terms. Bill never planned for viewers to hear himself or anyone talk on TV about him being gay, but a couple of coworkers said it during the 10 o’clock news the night he recited his vows. He approved the announcement shortly before it happened, but it wasn’t something he intended to happen. His wedding was before the Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage in his home state, so Bill and his fiancé traveled to another state that enacted a marriage equality act three years earlier. The same week they exchanged nuptials, a straight coworker got engaged and married in a whirlwind 24 hours. That reporter proposed on a Monday, had his ceremony that 144 Tuesday, and Bill’s wedding—scheduled long in advance—was on Wednesday: Now [the station] is in this situation. “We just made this big deal about this guy getting married, proposing and one day [later] getting married, and we're going to ignore Bill’s marriage?” They all knew I was getting married. They’re all invited. So now it's like, “So what do we do with this?” I don't think they had much choice, not that they cared, but there wasn't a “We shouldn't do it.” It was, “Is it okay with him if we do this? We have to do this. It would be wrong of us to ignore his marriage the day after we made such a big deal about the straight guy getting married.” Another gay coworker who was a wedding guest shocked Bill that day with a request from the station for photographs. With little time to think, he gave his blessing. Less than three hours after the ceremony began, pictures of Bill and his husband in their tuxedos were on the nightly news in one of the largest DMAs in the country. “I didn’t object to it. It was a funny situation,” Bill said. “Probably people that heard it spilled their wine. Even those that knew, I think were like, ‘Oh my God. He's putting it out there,’ and it wasn’t really me.” Other local media ran stories the following the day. The website for his city’s major newspaper posted a story which had a photo of Bill and his now-husband from an event several years earlier, not the wedding, with two other men standing between them. He acknowledged that the press coverage of what he described to the newspaper’s reporter as a “fairly traditional” wedding potentially put attention on folks in attendance who are not public figures like he is. It outs a lot of other people. I mean, certainly it outed [my husband] to his company, which, he had never hidden it but it never been discussed. Now his colleagues are gonna find out that he's gay and he's just gotten married to the weatherman, and it's going to out a lot of, probably, the guests that had said they're going to be in or going to a wedding. It kind of dominoes. Fears About Coming Out A few newscasters said efforts to avoid being found out were taxing, but they did so to try to avoid negative or adverse reactions from managers and viewers. Dante lamented that he and many other LGBTQ+ people continue to fear that disclosure of their sexual orientation or identity will have adverse consequences: 145 Is somebody going to hate me simply for standing in my truth, and existing how I was born, and living my life the way that I'm meant to? Is someone going to hate me for that? What kind of backlash, what kind of punishment, what kind of ridicule will I face simply for being who I am? He said these doubts linger no matter how many positive experiences he has. I truly understand why somebody would want to wait to disclose because there's always that fear in the back of any LGBTQ person's mind that “you're not going to like me, you're not going to trust me, you're not going to tune in.” It's sad, because TV folks already have a lot of hangups. Deadline. Is my story good? Is my tracking good? Did I get the right story? Did I get scoops? There's already all these issues, and then on top of that an LGBTQ+ journalist has all these extra burdens to consider at the same time. Many of the interviewees expressed uncertainty about how audience members with pre-existing negative attitudes about LGBTQ+ people will respond to an out newscaster, and whether a viewer may dislike them, perceive them as less qualified than straight newscasters, voice their opinions through various forms of negative, sometimes hateful feedback, or worse. Safety Worries about negative viewer responses go beyond concerns that people will stop watching or say something hurtful. Several newscasters expressed fear of physical harm. In a terrifying moment, Randy said a person showed up at his home after he announced the adoption of his son. His state’s Board of Elections has a public voter search directory, so Randy and his husband took action to get their address removed from it and other online databases: “If you do come out, you have to be aware that we live in a world where people are very crazy now and they have very strong opinions on things… You look over your shoulder more. You definitely do.” He said the current political climate has increased fears for LGBTQ+ people’s safety. Jonas also voiced anxiety about someone finding out where he lives. He takes negative posts or messages seriously as they validate ongoing concerns about hostility toward LGBTQ+ people, and he worries they could become more than words: “It's always those concerns where it translates from an email or the quarterly, handwritten letter I get from a Jehovah's Witness, 146 saying that I'm going to spend eternity in the lake of fire, versus showing up at my door.” When Travis came out on air as a college intern during a discussion of the murder of Matthew Shepard, his mom was “genuinely worried about my safety. She was like, ‘please be careful.’” Months later, at his first job, he found himself covering a vandalized National Coming Out Day exhibit. A group of college students put a closet in the middle of their campus, and vandals set it on fire overnight. He recalls a noose hung from the charred remnants, and remembers wondering if he should also be afraid. At his second station, his news director assigned him to cover a protest organized by the Westboro Baptist Church: I remember standing in his office and being like, “you know, they want to kill me, right?” And he basically was like, “Yes.” “And you want to send me by myself?” …and he was like, “Yes.” And at that moment, I was like, “You're trying to spark a reaction, like you want good TV,” and that was the first time I've ever drawn a line in the sand and I was like, “No, this is unsafe, and you will send a photographer with me if you want me to genuinely go to this.” Several reporters highlighted the added dangers of the multimedia journalist (MMJ) position, in which one works alone as their own photographer, due to not having a colleague to serve as an ally or shield. While at his third station, Travis became president of the board of directors for a nonprofit gay mentoring organization. A viewer who found out about it came to the station, outraged by Travis’s work with teens and young adults: “It was dangerous, and he was open carrying. He didn't brandish his gun, but it was a scary thing. He sent me emails that were like, ‘You should die.’” Some of the non-White and the female reporters expressed additional safety concerns—although these weren’t always associated with LGBTQ+ identity. Stephen, who is both South Asian American and physically small, said he had to be on guard against confrontations based on any of his traits, “because I don't know which part of me could endanger me in some way, or cause some sort of negative consequence.” Megan’s first market had one-tenth the number of 147 households as her current market, which arguably increased her status as a public figure in that small city while also offering fewer places to be. “There were times where I did feel unsafe, especially when I was at a bar with friends at night. I made sure to not be out and share my sexuality with anyone,” she said. Nora noted that a camera and press badge provide some protection in less-welcoming areas, but that is only while on duty and is not something that most people like her have at their jobs. Jackie said there were multiple times in the years before she came out that she was in unsafe situations, stalked, and harassed, “just because of this job.” She and her husband discussed fears of threats and harassment as they debated being public about their relationship, with fears of what might happen if they20 appeared on her social media. She did not want them to have to lock their social media account, and she pondered “whether to ask them unfairly to get off of social media that had been such a productive platform for them as a community organizer.” The couple ultimately decided to share their joy with viewers and use Jackie’s visibility to help answer community questions about non-binary and transgender people. Another positive from the experience was the opportunity for Jackie to better educate her coworkers about safety, particularly heterosexual male colleagues like her co-anchor: It's brought up a good discussion internally with his family as well that I'm not sure that he would have gotten around to as quickly if I hadn't been sharing the process of how we were thinking about my coming out and keeping [my husband] safe. She urges all newscasters, gay and straight, to be cautious when using social media. Credibility Concerns More than one-third of the 25 newscasters shared concerns about being perceived as less credible because of their sexual orientation. Several said they no longer feel that way at this stage 20 Jackie’s husband uses they/them pronouns. 148 of their lives, but did early on as they were just beginning to find their footing in the industry. Several tied this to the small markets they worked in at the start of their careers, which were described by various newscasters as “very conservative,” “most conservative,” and “exceptionally conservative.” Jason, a meteorologist in a Top 10 market, “absolutely” feels like being gay may affect viewer perceptions of his proficiencies, and noted that “if they are less open in terms of their exposure to someone within the [LGBTQ] community, they may selfishly or naively attach the person's credibility to their sexual preference.” He said the misperception may also be frequently held by older viewers who also have limited interactions with gay people. Bill, who is in his 60s and also a meteorologist in a Top 10 market, said those concerns about being viewed as less qualified—or people at least having those perceptions—date back to when he started 40 years ago. He said that with the exception of Elton John, people who had come out at that point were seen as less than and had not received respect. Many from his generation still hold the same views they did then. While Bill was out to coworkers, friends, and others in his social circle for many years, most viewers did not find out he is gay until about three decades into his career. “I think my credibility having been established was what saved me in terms of viewers. I had already been through so many storms, tropical storms and hurricanes, and they loved me for all of that coverage,” he said. Stephen, a reporter, said he knows there is little he can do to change the minds of some people who have voiced prejudiced opinions. “I've been told, ‘Well, if you're gay, then that's going to impact your productivity or your performance.’ What I do in my bedroom has nothing to do with how I can tell a story. It just doesn't. It's not relevant,” he expressed with frustration. Mike, a meteorologist, has a similar retort for anyone who wants to use his LGBTQ+ identity to question his credibility or professionalism: “If you think me being gay matters to how 149 well I do physics, then that's pretty pathetic. That's on you. That's not on me.” He said it is imperative for LGBTQ+ newscasters to remind themselves that they are experts at their jobs: There are always going to be haters. You just need to block that out and think about all of the work that you've done, all the effort you put into your craft and your science, and be comfortable in that. A few reporters said they are confident that they have established solid reputations with their audiences. Maria’s credentials include awards for her reporting in major cities and said that if someone tried to discredit her work because she is gay, she could counter with a long list of stories that confirm her capabilities. However, she recognized that negative “noise” is out there. “You can be seen as less objective, you can be seen as less trustworthy,” Maria said. Others said hang-ups from early in their careers, often from the years before they were ready to come out, don’t fully go away. Erica, an Emmy-winning reporter in a Top 50 market, said she was once concerned that people wouldn’t trust her as a journalist if she came out. She “eventually got over it,” and said she no longer thinks viewers care about her lesbian identity—at least not unfavorably—but some confidence issues remain. “I feel like even to this day that I would be seen as less credible to viewers because of boxes. I don't know if it's true or if it's my experiences and my insecurities, putting it in my mind,” Erica said. Gaining Trust and Credibility A few newscasters said the appearance or perception of withholding or keeping secret their sexual orientation is tied to trust. Trusting that someone isn’t biased and will be objective is a big part of that, but it extends to other aspects of credibility such as honesty and reliability. Sean recognized this when he was 20, when he came out to his mother and she worried how it might affect his career. He told her: “Mom, I'm asking people to trust me, and trust the information I'm giving them, and if I'm lying about who I am, why would they ever trust me?” Sean said he decided early on that it’s a viewer problem, not a Sean problem, if they get upset 150 about him being gay. If he hid it, and it somehow got out, then it would become a Sean problem: I don't want the reason why someone isn't watching [to be] because I lied about it. “Well, he wasn't truthful about himself.” Because then someone who's a bigot can use that as the excuse as to why they don't like you, as opposed to, “This person has always been out. I don't like them.” then all of a sudden, it turns the coin on them, because then they have to look at themselves. “Oh, I don't like him because he's gay.” Several newscasters believe they gained more trust with viewers—and colleagues—when they were out. Travis said he thinks people on the opposite side of the LGBTQ+ equality debate from him recognized that he was sincere in his interest in hearing their views, “because I am someone who wants to be wide-eyed and I want to listen to what your heart is telling you, I want to hear your words. … I think that adds to the journalism.” Steve hid his sexuality from the public for years, although there were folks in the LGBTQ+ community who knew, including some coworkers, and he thinks they judged him and saw him as less credible. He knew most viewers perceived him as straight. “If I'm lying about that, why would I be honest about anything else,” Steve said. “I think my credibility skyrocketed when I came out because I was being honest.” Worries About Career Advancement The first of the 25 interviewees, a veteran reporter in a Top 10 market, observed that, “To this day, I think there are some journalists that do believe that it's a detriment to their career. I wouldn't say that it is the same thought [as] 20 years ago, but it's still lingering out there.” Another veteran reporter, also in a Top 10 market, said he doesn’t feel less credible in the eyes of viewers, but he occasionally questions how management sees his sexuality. Even as he works at one of the country’s biggest stations, he still wonders if being gay is a hindrance to his career. Charles serves as a cautionary tale of how things were not that long ago. In 2009, his station first demoted him and then pulled him from the air following a series of events which included an ex-partner trying to malign him with private information—for which he obtained a 151 restraining order. He filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, which terminated his contract days later. He said managers found out he was gay before the ex-partner began his vendetta, and had told him they wouldn’t have put him in a prominent anchor role had they known. Charles said he hoped to combat his boss’s reservations by remaining in the closet indefinitely as far as the public knew, “playing the game of if … I can stay on here long enough that I'll have enough leverage that then I can be out before they second guess the whole thing”—essentially trying to delay disclosure to diminish negative response. Instead, with a clause in his contract that said he could be fired for involvement in anything perceived to be scandalous, he was a newscaster out of a job. With a pending lawsuit against that station and press attention from local newspapers and national organizations such as The Advocate, The Daily Beast, and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, he assumed his career was over: I had to accept the possibility that it would make me unhirable. That was kind of a hard pill to swallow, but nothing in the world that I was looking at suggested that that wasn't the case, which is kind of sad… It sort of justified why all those people at the time—the Sams and the Andersons—wouldn't have come out. Like, why are you going to do that? Charles left news for more than a decade, teaching middle school before returning to TV in 2022. The Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling in 2020 that protects workers against sexuality-based or gender identity-based discrimination was a major turning point for several newscasters. One said that prior to the ruling, big names like Anderson Cooper didn’t have to worry because they already had “very established media careers” while he “had a lot to lose.” He said he now has “the confidence of knowing that if you try to screw with me just because I'm gay, I am going to bury you legally. I have that absolute confidence of, if you dare try, I'm not gonna let you.” However, some expressed concerns that even though they believe their jobs are secure because of Bostock, they may still have fewer opportunities for advancement—and legal cases 152 claiming discrimination would be difficult to prove. A weekend morning anchor said he is confident his being out throughout his career has hampered him: “I've been up for three different promotions in the last five years. I haven't gotten them and they've gone to straight people,” he said. Weekend evening and weekday anchor slots come with greater recognition and typically a higher paycheck as well. Despite this, the anchor said he wouldn’t take back his openness. Steve, who has had lead roles at multiple stations, said that his career progression has not been inhibited by being gay but believes people who are married with children “have an edge … in news, because the whole family thing is a very nice thing to promote.” He is aware of multiple instances when gay friends interviewed for jobs that ultimately went to a straight married person: They may have gotten the job because they're a better candidate, but I feel like married people get a little bit more opportunity than gay people. There might still be some of that lingering, leftover, old fashioned feeling from some more conservative managers. Steve said he hopes fears of lost job opportunities will not dissuade folks from coming out. “You will get a better opportunity down the road if you've lost an opportunity for being gay,” he said. Several newscasters said it is good to know in advance of taking a job if an employer—or a community—is not welcoming to openly gay on-air talent, as those are places they should not want to work. “Go where you feel that you're wanted and accepted,” David said. “You can gauge that ahead of time … in your interview speaking to the news director and finding out.” Arch had been with his company for nearly a decade and didn’t think there would be issues—and there weren’t—but his attitude was “God forbid if that happened, I’ll go somewhere else.” Multiple interviewees said there are far more places that are supportive than places they are not. While it is frustrating that not everywhere is welcoming, Megan said it’s worth it to find those that are: You have to bring your whole self to work and if you can't, recognize that and do your best to exit that situation or that workplace and find somewhere that fully not just accepts but embraces you, because there's definitely a place and a space for you, and it's in news. A few of the newscasters have worked for gay or lesbian supervisors and station executives. 153 Most of the time, those newsroom leaders oversaw operations that were inclusive and diverse in their coverage and personnel. However, one veteran anchor said that is not always true. “I have found that even out gay news managers and sometimes closeted news managers, really, almost back away from hiring gay talent,” this anchor said. They had no idea why this might be. Being “The Gay” Newscaster Several interviewees expressed concerns about being labeled “the gay reporter,” “the gay anchor,” or “the gay weatherman.” Maria said she has felt a need to establish her journalist credentials in the eyes of others before sharing insight into her personal life. “The fear is that I'll only be known as that kind of journalist, I'm always going to be a queer journalist,” she said. Tom, a reporter for more than 30 years, stressed that his concern about the label “the gay” was not in a name-calling or derogatory sense, but he didn’t want to be known for being gay: I wanted to be known for being a really tough and fair and tenacious reporter, especially tenacious. I wanted to be that guy chasing people down the streets. I didn't want to be “Tom [the] gay reporter,” and I was lucky enough that this was never a deal. He has no problem with people knowing he is gay, but in their recognition and personal rankings of his traits, he said that should come at the bottom, as it does in the last line of his station bio. Similarly, Larry said he doesn’t want people to see him at the news desk and immediately default to thinking about “this gay news anchor” on their screens: I want them to think first—when they think of me and my capacity as a journalist—is award-winning, thorough, dogged, consistent. I want those adjectives. Me being gay should not be anywhere in the list because, to me, it's not important to the conversation. One exception was apparent. Attitudes are different if a viewer is also LGBTQ+, and identifies a newscaster as being a member of their shared community. Erica heard about a friend-of-a-friend, also a lesbian, who said “I like to watch this investigative reporter on [this station], because it's the lesbian, the gay one.” The viewer felt represented through Erica’s presence on TV. 154 “The Gay _____” Okay for Some Roles, But Not All All of the newscasters who are at least 50 years old noted that when they were starting out, some newsroom positions seemed like they were off limits if you weren’t straight. “At the beginning, I don't know if gays always saw themselves in every role in the newsroom,” investigative reporter Tom said. “It was safe to be maybe a meteorologist and if you're lucky a reporter, fine, but you can never be a main anchor and be gay.” Charles, a morning anchor, said there were—and still are, depending on the generation—viewers who perceived gay men as “soft” and not aligned with their vision of what a main lead evening anchor should be. “There are still cultural attitudes that don't quite put [together] being gay and being whatever you'd consider a masculine, weighted with some gravitas, male image,” he said. Bill got a journalism degree in the 1980s, but as a gay man, he didn’t think he could have a lasting career in TV news: The reason I didn't pursue reporting, leading hopefully to an anchor position, was because I knew I was gay. I thought, “At some point, this is gonna come out, and it's going to ruin me,” and so why would I go down that path, knowing that… when I'm 32, or 35, or 42, it's all gonna come out. “He's never been married. He's gay. We don't want him anymore.” Now I'm going to be 40 and have no job and [have to] start over. He said that if there were openly gay anchors like Anderson Cooper or Shepard Smith whom he could have looked up to, he would have been more inclined to pursue reporting. The Weather Channel launched the same year Bill graduated college, leading to numerous openings at local news stations whose established meteorologists moved to the cable network. He incorrectly assumed the weather role was minor and would draw less attention than reporters or anchors: Nobody really even knows your name, right? They just know what you do. Little did I know that weather is probably the most important thing in the whole newscast. You become a huge star if you’re the favorite weatherman, and so I got into this and I kind of stepped into a pile of shit. Bill and the other meteorologists agreed that weather anchors seem to be more accepted by viewers than news anchors. “I think it's because being a weather person, you can be more 155 flamboyant and more animated and have a little bit more fun, that maybe you can get away with a little bit more,” Steve said. A couple joked that they’re often asked if all weather men are gay, as it has become almost expected. Mike opined that any viewer who decides to change channels after hearing him mention his husband is going to be disappointed. “I guess there are probably people turning us off, but I got news for them: there's a gay meteorologist on every station here in the market and they're all out, so good luck finding one that's not,” he said. Jonas said he feels safe mentioning his husband on air because he’s not reporting on “queer-related policy” and is “not going to gay up the weather. I'm not going to make the weather gay-biased or anything like that—you can't—so I have that significant luxury compared to what reporters or anchors would have.” Tom emphasized the major progress made in overall newsroom representation since he started more than 30 years ago, as there are now LGBTQ+ folks in every position, including main anchor, news director, and general manager. Intersectionality Masculinity and Male Stereotypes In line with what Charles said about a certain kind of male image associated with main anchors, several participants discussed differences in perception between newscasters who appear straight or more traditionally masculine and those who present or read as stereotypically gay. Some said viewers seem to have more favorable views of gay newscasters who don’t come across as gay—Charles said he’s even received complimentary feedback about how he doesn’t come across as what viewers typically expect a gay man to be: I do get a lot of really nice stuff from folks out there who I think maybe needed to see a gay man on the air who… isn't the stereotype. There's nothing wrong with a stereotype. ... It's when you're not that stereotype that it's sort of a head spinner for some folks. Stephen noted that people “present queerness in different ways,” and although perceivers can’t necessarily tell what a gay person looks like, a stereotypical flamboyance can be easier to see. 156 John—who described himself as “for the most part, very masc-presenting”—observed that he has never had to deal with negative comments from viewers about his being gay, but he knows of a couple of “more femme-presenting guys” who have not been as fortunate: I wonder if I would have had the success that I’ve had in my career so far. … Is it because I have the luxury of presenting that way? I remember one of them saying people say nasty things to him all the time. I’m just like, “How do you deal with that every day?” I’d be so defeated by all those comments. I look at my path, and I'm doing great, but then I see other people's path, and I'm like, we still live in a country where people are nasty. Sean’s husband saw him on TV for years before they met and always assumed he was straight. Some viewers who aren’t aware he is gay have even misconstrued some LGBTQ+-related things he’s said as being homophobic, because they thought the comments came from a straight man: It's all about perception, right? So even though I'm out, I'm not out for some reason. The information is out there, and if you watch long enough, you could probably pick up on the fact that I'm gay, but I'm not doing all of the things that sometimes people do. Andy said that individuals who pass as straight can have more control over their decisions to disclose because they aren’t recognized as gay and may face less pressure to come out: There's people that don't officially come out, but you see them on TV and you just know they're gay. … I often feel bad for the folks that are the ones that don't want to come out on air, but are very clearly likely gay in their presentation, at no fault of their own, it's just who they are. Andy said he considers himself “in between or maybe more straight passing, so I don't have that pressure because I can go both ways if I want to.” He said early in his career he was worried if he had mannerisms or a lisp viewers might notice, and shared a story about a friend who got a voice coach when they started appearing on television because they wanted to sound “less gay:” The voice coach said, “No, you don't. That's not what you need to sound like, you need to sound just confident on air.” I think he really appreciated that because that took a little bit of the weight and pressure off this expectation that he had to be straight on TV. Travis said he had both a news director and a general manager who told him he was too gay to be on TV. He admitted to wearing outlandish outfits such as “skin tight leather pants and a Kermit 157 the Frog green crazy turtleneck in live shots in Montana, so you could turn on the TV and be like, ‘I have a suspicion,’” but one of those managers also said he came across as too gay because he talked with his hands too much. He said he was later fortunate to have a much more supportive news director—a lesbian in a predominantly liberal major city—who told him to “be the queerest queer you want to be” because “you connect with an audience by being you.” Several interviewees talked about having an ability to shift between appearing gay or straight depending on the circumstances. While many newscasters have an “anchorman voice,” every layer of trying to avoid coming across as gay detracts from their available mental capacity and attention to focus on their work, particularly on what they’re saying rather than on how they’re sounding. Tim said he had to be “hyper aware of my mannerisms, how I talked,” and not just on camera, but also behind the scenes in the six years before he came out to any coworkers: If you're trying not to be clocked in the newsroom, you're not able to be authentic in conversation. “What are you doing for the weekend?” “Well, I was gonna go to the gay club, but let me tell you that I'm going to the mall with some friends.” You're not instantly kind of having that social conversation with your colleagues that is genuine and authentic. You're editing yourself in real time. Several newscasters said they became better reporters when they stopped spending energy on trying to hide. By being who they are rather than attempting to cover a part of themselves and try to be something else, they could put all their energy into news coverage. Stephen explained that when “we put on masks or we code switch, we are concealing some part of ourselves. I think once I came out, I wasn't hiding anything anymore.” Several other newscasters talked about code switching21 and speaking differently for television than they do with their friends. It should be noted that just because a gay newscaster presents as traditionally masculine (or a lesbian newscaster as feminine) or comes across as stereotypically straight does not mean 21 The term “code-switching” originated in linguistics with reference to a mix of languages and speech patterns. Its broader use includes changes in how a person expresses parts of their identity in different situations (Demby, 2013). 158 that they are putting effort into passing or trying to hide their identity. The purpose of this section is to emphasize that newscasters are aware of stereotypes and that particular presentations are perceived more and less favorably by viewers, supervisors, and even other newscasters. Those who align closely to the industry’s established heteronormative standards have an easier time. As Jonas explained, “I'm still a White man doing a very traditionally White man job. Being someone who's more straight presenting, I have those shields.” White Privilege Jonas was among several White newscasters to say they have experienced privilege associated with their race. The researcher informed most participants that the composite findings of previous newscaster credibility studies identify the traits which receive the highest ratings are White, male, at least 35, above-average looks, and pleasant vocal quality—attributes which are an accurate description of at least one-third of the study’s participants, including Dante: That also makes me sad, because obviously I have coworkers and colleagues from all different backgrounds that I admire, and I look up to and I think I want to be half the journalists you are, and they are not White or men or around the age of 35. I guess I just hope that public perception shifts on that obviously different standard. Three of the 12 White male participants argued that gay White males are no longer a minority. Tom said the “gay White guy experience” differs greatly from the experiences of other races: White men don't have a bad environment, they have enormous opportunities and enormous privilege, and that's extended to gay White men as well. I think it's troubling to kind of look at gay men as some kind of minority group because I don't think we are, quite frankly, and I certainly don't think we are in television news. He added that, although they haven’t always been out, gay White men have always been involved in the news business and have probably have held enormous power throughout television history. The assertion that White gay men are empowered and featured in news was not a complaint, but a recognition that with this status comes a responsibility to be mindful of the experiences of non-White LGBTQ+ newscasters and to lift up each other. Sean explained: 159 If you would have told me 30 years ago, when I came out, that being a White gay guy was going to be so like blasé and normalized, I'd be like, “What?” And it is, just being gay. … I’m part of the part of the problem now. In the entire rainbow of the rainbow alphabet soup that we have, I am one of the problems, and I've worked on that as well, because there's a lot of work to be done. Dante highlighted the importance of using his position to elevate not only non-White LGBTQ+ stories, but non-White stories overall. In addition to his coverage for Pride Month, he tends to produce the most Black History Month and Women’s History Month stories at his station as well: I'm always like, “No, we have to do these stories,” to the point sometimes of pissing off my bosses, and I don't really care. I think that's what being a true ally is. You have to stand in the gap for these people, especially if they're not represented in your newsroom. His station’s staff bios page shows only one Black newscaster among three dozen featured faces. This is not to say that straight presenting, White gay newscasters are immune from negative comments. Those still come, and newscasters emphasize criticism may have nothing to do with being gay. Jonas takes those and uses his platform to show how relatively easy he has it: There are social media posts I've made in the past where I'll post something about a negative comment I got, just because I've seen it working with female meteorologists, Black meteorologists, Black female meteorologists. I always mention, “Hey, I get this just as a White guy, but this for a female or a minority or a non-White person, or specifically a female non-White person, it's so much worse. Absolutely so much worse.” Racial Issues Nine of the 25 participants are either Black, Hispanic, or Asian American. All nine said their race typically plays a larger role in how they are perceived than their LGBTQ+ identity. Stephen, who is South Asian American, said one of the reasons he got into news was for ethnic visibility rather than queer visibility. “I had always felt obligated to be as visible as possible culturally, and I often find that people that are from a community often tell more authentic stories that way,” he said. Since his on-air career included time when he was both in the closet and out, he is able to compare the ways he presented himself as a queer person. Stephen 160 concluded his race drew more attention, but when it came to discrimination and times “I got the strong sense I was not welcome in certain communities,” intersectionality was a factor with his race, sexual orientation, and just being part of suspicion-inducing news media all coming into play. “When you come across situations where people may have something to say, you're constantly wondering, what part of me today upset them,” he said. Tim pointed out that everyone knows he’s Black before they know he is gay, so when he notices any potential inequity, his default is to first question if it’s because of his race before considering his sexuality. Several were the only person of color at some of their stations, usually those in small markets in more rural areas with large White populations. John, who is Hispanic, said he was “the only Brown person” at his first station, where he saw White counterparts—even the gay ones—get opportunities he didn’t. One occasion that stood out was after the 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando where 49 people died. Most were gay and most were Hispanic: I tried to make a case for myself, but at the end of the day, they ended up going with the two gay White anchors to go do that. I just felt a little like, “Interesting. They're doing a gay story, with no diversity here. Yeah, yeah. What's, what's going on here?” John said much of the positive feedback he gets from viewers is associated with his race. He’s not sure if people think mentioning his sexual identity is taboo, even as compliments. “People have said, ‘Thank you just for being yourself,’ but I get that more for being Hispanic than gay.” The three Black newscasters in this study each identified the importance of their visibility for Black viewers. Jason has been the first Black meteorologist at multiple stations and even in multiple markets. Now in a Top 10 market with nearly 500,000 Black residents in the main city’s greater metropolitan area, Jason is the first Black meteorologist in his station’s 75-year history: I realize I'm not just doing this for me, I'm doing this for other people that look like me, or dream these big dreams coming from where I've come from. It's on so many different levels. It's not just a Black level, it's not just a gay level. … All those things marred together on paper, you would think like, “This isn't something that we normally see.” 161 Larry doesn’t think his sexuality has ever affected perceptions of his credibility, but his race has. Having worked in multiple markets with large Black populations—now a major city that is 40% Black and a metro area that is about one-fourth Black, he said “the issue of race is a lot more pronounced than the issue of sexual identity.” Viewers assign him that visibility responsibility: The emails, the comments I get are always, “They need to see young Black professionals like yourself in this capacity that aren't doing like football and sports and basketball, or who are educated professionals working in a sort of professional space.” Arch said he feels a similar responsibility because of how few Asian American anchors there are, and even fewer Indian Americans, and even fewer gay ones. However, by being visible as both Indian and openly gay, he hopes he can change views about both for the better. He also shared that he thinks racial minority newscasters can connect well with other racial minority viewers. Nathan, who is Filipino, said he believes gay White men are perceived more favorably than he is because of their historic dominant status. He looks Asian but has a Spanish surname, which results in some people being confused because they are unfamiliar with Filipino history: Add your sexual orientation on top of it, and you just seem even more different. I think it's much more difficult for people to connect with you and I'm always very just mindful of how I come across. If I'm in a city council meeting, and I'm in a room full of older White guys and White women too, how do they perceive me? How does racism kind of develop and play itself there? On top of it, I'm gay too. I feel like I'm seen as less than. He said he at times feels excluded from the LGBTQ+ community because of his race as well. Another Asian American, Maria, noted that some viewers incorrectly assume she belongs to other racial and ethnic groups—they don’t know what her heritage is, just that she isn’t Caucasian. As a non-White, lesbian, second generation American, she said there are numerous identities “important to weave into the fabric” of who she is. In her May 2 interview, she noted it was Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, right before Pride Month in June, but her focus was more on the latter, as coverage of LGBTQ+ issues felt “most urgent.” However, she said the part of her identity that gets more attention and most affects perception is her gender. 162 Gender Issues Maria said that in every space she enters, she is a woman first, then Asian American, and then gay—if the third comes up, and it usually doesn’t. On occasions when her identity as a lesbian has been part of the conversation, she said she has never had “truly negative responses from people that matter,” but a common response is “that's kind of badass” or it makes her intimidating. She had a recent conversation with a Black gay newscaster in which he said: When people learn that he's gay, it eases their shoulders a little bit, they see him as more approachable, they see him as less intimidating. I just thought that was so fascinating, because for me, it's kind of the opposite. … It softens him, and the result for someone like me is it actually kind of hardens me as a journalist. She said part of that perception is likely because there are so few out lesbians in broadcast news, both on screen and behind the scenes. Maria said cisgender gay males have created a lot of progress for LGBTQ+ people, but she wants more gender-associated nuance within newsrooms, including lesbians, non-binary, and transgender journalists. Nora, a transgender reporter, said an understated factor in visibility discourse involves the many average viewers who have become accustomed to seeing and accepting of openly gay men as anchors as opposed to an out lesbian. Jackie, an anchor, said there is an established standard and expectation of the type of women in newscaster roles. This includes physical appearance, regarding hair, makeup, jewelry, and clothing, as well as personality—the “anchorette persona” Jackie explained as: Women in broadcast TV have to deal with the perception that they are the girl next door, that if you just met her, she would just love you [or] fall in love with you. For women, you want to be their friend. For men, you want to date them. This is the old line of thinking that consultants will tell you: you want to be pretty enough to where women want to be your friend, but they're not threatened by you, and you want to be attractive enough to where men think they still have chance with you. Jackie feared that coming out as a lesbian would result in her voice being stifled, being taken less seriously, and less qualified to her job, but reactions were positive. She said some viewers were surprised that nothing about her appearance or personality changed. “It was just business as 163 usual. Just because I was queer didn't mean I was going to shave my hair into a mohawk.” She otherwise still fit the station’s branding of her as a friendly, personable, middle class White Christian person people can rely on. She said she was lucky: People felt closer to me, and they … liked me better, because they knew that about me. It took pressure off of my male viewers, and it took pressure off of my female viewers, too, so it was a weird, backdoor kind of way to their hearts. Another gender-related issue that Jackie dealt with during her career that only one of the men mentioned was the number of viewers who made unwelcomed comments to her about wanting her to date their relatives, such as sons and nephews. “Before I was out, I probably got more negative comments because of who I wasn't dating than the negative comments that I got after I got married.” Jackie’s husband is transgender, as is Nora, a newscaster whose experience of transitioning while on air will be discussed in a later section. Megan has been public about her personal journey in becoming comfortable with how she conveys “gay” on TV. A TikTok video with more than 10 million views shows her evolution from wearing consultant-recommended news anchor dresses and feminine jewelry to her current fashion which she describes as a mix of masculine and feminine, including an undercut hairstyle, suits, collared shirts, and sneakers. She highlighted how pretending to be the traditional female anchor led to awkward on-air interactions with male anchors, but wearing what makes her feel confident and presenting her true self has made her a more enthusiastic and better journalist. Coming Out is a Process Several interviewees said decisions about disclosing to the viewing audience waited until after they disclosed to people in their personal and professional lives. Some affirmed findings of numerous prior studies that “coming out” only applies to the audience in that particular moment; disclosures are isolated incidents that are then repeated with each new audience who learns for the first time. LGBTQ+ individuals go through their stages of coming out on their own timeline, 164 from self-realization to making decisions about with whom, when, and how to share information about their identity. A common progression identified by most of the newscasters was to disclose first to trusted and supportive people close to them in their personal lives, then those in their professional lives, and then the viewing public. Relocating to a new station could reset those last two stages, as they met a new set of colleagues and audience, with some exceptions when a person’s portfolio of work or prior recognition of visibility was established before the move. Coming Out to Yourself While several interviewees said they knew from an early age that they weren’t straight, with some even coming out to family and close friends while in high school, a few said they didn’t clearly understand their identity until years into their professional lives. Arch always put work ahead of relationships, and wasn’t entirely sure of the significance of a lack of chemistry on dates with women. He said a set of questions many people asked themselves during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic—“Is this the relationship you want? Is this the job that you want? Is this the life you want?”—helped him fully realize in his mid-30s that he is gay. In the span of about one year, he came out to himself, then family, friends, coworkers, and then viewers in a National Coming Out Day post, accompanied by a segment on a station’s weekly talk show. Stephen referred to “queer puberty,” which he compared to a second adolescence in the way people learn about themselves and experience personal growth and maturity: “When you come out, it's also the same type of deal, where people put off marriages and relationships.” Stephen emphasized that people are on different timelines. Bill, who is in his 60s, knows many people in the industry who took a long time to come out—at all—not because of the business but for other reasons. “It's been nice to watch people finally come to terms with it,” Bill said. Jackie talked about the journey of self-awareness and the need to allow time and space 165 for exploring identity through things such as pronouns—Jackie uses she/her while her husband uses they/them—and deciding how to present individual identity to the world for public perception. “Finding your way to your truth, doing the introspection that is important, especially for many of us, I think, who came out late,” Jackie said. When self-realization occurs in adulthood—as it did for at least two of the 25 newscasters in this study—the timeline of disclosure to audiences is not comparable to the timeline of someone who came out to their friends and family during college. These newscasters could already be in a large market or established in their careers, having already bypassed some of the factors that regularly discourage disclosure by others. Coming Out to Family and Friends As news is public, and many newscasters’ parents (including the researcher’s) keep up with their children’s reporting, it is unlikely a newscaster can be out to viewers without their family knowing. Jason highlighted “the acceptance or lack of acceptance from their family” in many people’s disclosure journeys. Several interviewees said concerns about parents finding out was a factor in keeping information about personal lives private. Like Arch, Erica went public once she came out to her mother: “It wasn't until 10 years into my professional career that I came out to my mom. Once that happened, then I didn't care who else knew.” Neither Stephen nor Megan’s parents responded well when they came out to them. Both received parental warnings that they could be throwing away their careers if their bosses or viewers found out. Even after Stephen got married, his parents were upset when he made references to his husband on social media or had LGBTQ+-related posts. Stephen’s mom said: “If you tell people you're gay, they're going to treat you differently, you're going to get fired, they're not going to want you at another station.” I had to really think about that, because I wasn't sure if she was right. Josh told his family after he told friends and colleagues. He received support from his parents 166 after he came out to them, but when he considered coming out to viewers, he was primarily concerned about the people who know his parents and live in their community, not where he is now. “They have to put up with that kind of stuff as well. I was more worried about kind of what people from my past would think or say or comment on the posts that I made,” Josh said. Coming Out to Coworkers Disclosure at work can span several sets of colleagues, especially newsrooms which are collaborative environments but have different pods of employees. Reporters and photographers can spend hours together in the field, co-anchors often have adjacent desks and banter with each other on- and off-camera, and LGBTQ+ journalists in various roles may congregate with each other as a community within the station. The researcher recalls a photographer once asking “did you know [name] was gay” more than a year after the photographer joined the team, and silently laughing at the naivete since that newscaster had been out to the researcher and others for years, and presented traits matching several stereotypes. There are also decisions about whether to make identity known to managers who make decisions about news content, story assignments, schedules, and which personnel to elevate to prominent roles. Managers and corporate supervisors also have the final say about what they want communicated to viewers, and whether or not they want LGBTQ+ visibility in their newscasts or station-affiliated digital platforms. Visibility and Attitudes Within Newsrooms Before Anything Goes on TV This study’s researcher worked alongside LGBTQ+ people in most positions, including reporter, anchor, meteorologist, photographer, producer, video editor, news director, assistant news director, and general manager. Most of the newscasters, including Steve, said newsrooms are now pretty accepting of LGBTQ+ people—due in part to the presence of those people: If you're in college and you're thinking of going into television and you're gay, you'll probably find some solace in that, saying, “Oh, I'm going into career where there's a lot of 167 gay people, and I'm going to be accepted.” A lack of visible LGBTQ+ newscasters until the past decade or so meant several interviewees had no idea how many people like them were already in the industry. Jonas recalls asking during an internship 15 years ago if being gay would be a problem. He said the response was: “If you work for a news director who doesn't like gay people, they're basically alienating half the industry as it is.” That was very comforting to hear that there's a lot of people out there, you just don't quite know yet. Seeing openly LGBTQ+ coworkers when arriving at a new station can provide a sense of community within the newsroom community, and knowing LGBTQ+ people already there feel comfortable being out makes it easier for new hires to be open as well. Stephen said he first did a “temperature check to make sure that I was going to be safe and welcomed here,” and discovered there were other folks who were queer and out. He was open with them, and after getting the feeling that they and the news director would support being open with viewers, he came out to his parents a couple days before making a public social media post on National Coming Out Day. In a divisive world with constantly shrinking bubbles, Maria said, “One of the beautiful things about newsrooms is [they] are still one of those places where we have diversity of thought and life experience.” Her newsroom has Palestinian, Jewish, and pro-Israeli people who successfully work together, and Maria being out in the newsroom as LGBTQ+ is part of her contributions to conversations of diversity and unity. Others have dealt with coworkers who are not supportive of LGBTQ+ equality. Jonas said management and his city are very accepting, but he works with “plenty of people” who do not think he and his husband should have the same rights they do. These colleagues acknowledge their biases in front of him, and Jonas fears those views may influence their news coverage, too: 168 If I know that people covering the stories still feel that way, chances are the public perception will still be molded in some way of thinking that we don't deserve equal rights as far as marriage or being able to start families. David said he “got the cold shoulder quite a bit” from colleagues who were anti-LGBTQ+. Some of his pitches for content that would promote visibility and increase viewer awareness of on-air talent were shot down by a manager who “would never talk to straight people like that. It was always the gay people in the station [who] were always given that cold shoulder.” Bill’s station stopped producing Pride promos featuring on-air talent after two of its newscasters refused to take part. The station in a Top 10 market had—like many others across the country—previously created videos in which staff say “Happy Pride” or something similar. The plan was for reporters and anchors to take turns in front of a rainbow-colored graphic to each say a word associated with LGBTQ+ pride, like “diversity,” “inclusion,” or “strength,” but a lead anchor said he would not do it on religious grounds. “It’s kind of obvious, when you’re the main guy and you’re not part of it, that you don’t want to be a part of it, so now we just don’t do it.” Bill said that the discussion for this research about the experiences of LGBTQ+ newscasters might prompt another set of questioning about how their visibility affects straight colleagues, “[when] everybody loves gay people now, and you're the straight guy in the room, who's an anchorman, and you feel like you're being put upon with something that you don't agree with.” Larry, currently an anchor in a Top 10 market, previously reported at a station in a Top 50 market where he was the only openly gay employee. Although management never treated him differently, he said some of his colleagues “exhibited some sort of hostility toward me for my sexuality.” He said two of the older female anchors in particular were difficult for him, and specifically remembers receiving flak for how he covered same-sex marriage. Larry said the industry requires “tough skin,” whether that is dealing with bigoted viewers or coworkers. “I just didn't give a fuck what people thought. I was going to do what I was going to do. I was going to 169 be successful, and if you didn't like me for something, you could just kiss my ass.” He said his openness in the newsroom is not to flaunt flamboyance, but to have conversations about his social life and relationships in the same ways his straight coworkers discuss theirs: My experience has been talking about it in that way has been a greater bridge for my colleagues that may have strong opinions on the other side about homosexuality and gay marriage, things like that. My hope is that I've shown them that I'm just as normal as they are, and that the sort of normal relationship shit that they deal with, I too deal with. He knew people talked negatively about him behind his back because those who had his back would sometimes report back to him. He recalled an instance when another reporter filled in as an anchor on a holiday—the fill-in role was usually Larry’s—and his work received praise. They said, “Listen, I'm really not a fan of that gay guy, Larry, but he sure is a lot better than [the other guy]. I laughed when it came back to me. Even in the case where they had a sort of opinion about me based on my sexuality, they still knew that I was a competent journalist that could do a job well, and would still want me to do that job, despite their feelings regarding how I live my life. Coming Out to Managers News directors, station general managers, and other executives oversee decisions about what appears on their airwaves. That includes the personnel, who as public figures are often expected to uphold certain standards as any misdeeds can be associated with the TV station. Contracts sometimes include a morals clause that can restrict behaviors to what the employer deems appropriate. Newscasters have been fired for being LGBTQ. The campaign website for Congressman Eric Sorensen of Illinois shares his story of coming out during college, and a warning from his father before he went to the ABC affiliate station in Lufkin “that things would be ‘different’ for me in Texas, and that it shouldn’t be that way.” Months into his first meteorology job, Sorensen “was called into my bosses’ office with a copy of my contract sitting on the desk and the ‘moral clause’ highlighted. I was told that I couldn’t be gay and work there.” LGBTQ+ newscasters argue that diversity and inclusivity is best for business, by 170 enfranchising people in the community through coverage of their stories while also reaching the largest possible audience to satisfy advertisers. Charles, an anchor in a Top 50 market, said managers must remember that audience includes LGBTQ+ people and other minorities: You can't reflect the people that we’re journaling … without reflecting it in its many shades, and genres, and rainbow of representation, if you will. That is women, that's men, it’s people of color, it’s straight, it's gay. … There's so many ways we show up and we need to do that in the newsroom. It's important that those who hire folks in the newsroom are aware of that. Manager Concerns About Viewers While journalism can be a public service, newsrooms are companies that rely on attracting audiences to watch commercials. “You have to sell ads, and you have to make money, and this is a business. It's not just a sharing of ideas and information. That does need to play into the calculus of management,” said Jackie, a former anchor who now works as newsroom manager. Managers need to present newscasts that do not cause viewers to change the channel. If they decide LGBTQ+ content or an on-air talent is disadvantageous, something else can air. While some cited gains of LGBTQ+ viewers, several newscasters said they feared their stations might lose some straight viewers when they come out. Dante was one of them: Sure, I did, but I didn't think that it would be a ton of viewers or something like that. I think, too, that we're at a place where if you're going to be hateful and prejudiced in some kind of way, then I don't think we want you. Bill said management only cares if there is a mass exodus of viewers. “If that's what happens, then I'm in trouble, but that's not what happened,” he said, and it didn’t to anyone else, either. Randy said there were times when managers made prejudicial judgments about some of his on-air appearances. “There were more conversations about my personal life and how viewers were thinking about it, or talking about it, or responding to it than my heterosexual counterparts, he said. He said he once had to have a detailed discussion before a high-profile interview in which managers told him not to ask questions about LGBTQ+ issues. They also told him: 171 “We want to make sure that you look like you're projecting a strong masculine image.” I’m like, “What would you think I was going to wear? A skirt?” I don't know of any of my co-anchors ever having to have those conversations in advance of things. Job Interviews A few of the newscasters talked about their sexual orientation during job interviews—sometimes planned, sometimes not. Erica brought it up to her future employers when she prepared to move from a Top 100 to a Top 50 market. “I'm gay, is that going to be a problem? Because I'm out, I'm married, it's on social.” The response was no problem at all, and managers told her about the ownership group’s dedication to inclusivity—which turned out to be accurate. During Megan’s in-person interview at her current station, the general manager asked her what was the hardest thing she’d ever been through. She surprised them both with a vulnerable response: “Because I was so unprepared for that question, I was just so honest. I was like, ‘Probably coming out to my parents.’ … He was so receptive and so empathetic.” She added: He ended up following up with, “Listen, we're a family here at [this station], and we mean that, through thick and thin. We want to be able to share things with each other and be who we are and whatnot.” I was like, “Whoa!” This was such a contrast from my former station, that I was like, “Oh my God, I feel so comfortable there.” Steve had an opposite experience when he went to his second station. No one said anything in his interview, but his new news director brought it up at lunch before his first day on air. Steve wasn’t out to anyone at his previous station and had yet to explore his new city’s social scene. He's like, “I'm hearing some rumors. I'm not telling you how to live your life, but if you're gay, it’s probably something you want to keep to yourself because people talk.” That was 2000. That may be the reason why it took me until 2006 to come out, because I had a news director telling me—and he wasn't being mean, I swear he was trying to help, and he's a good man—but that made me so insecure. … That really messed me up. He said that boss ended up being one of his favorite people ever, but it was a warning that there might be issues if people—particularly viewers—found out about his sexual orientation. When he left that station three years later, only a few trusted coworkers knew. 172 Ongoing Updates for Managers Randy always wanted to keep viewers informed about major life events, such as his marriage, the adoption of his son, and his cancer diagnosis, but he said he made sure to discuss these announcements with his bosses in advance. “I don't think anybody in management ever likes surprises. We live in a world where people will work with you. Believe your inner voice.” Jackie, who had previous relationships with cisgender men, went to her news director when she started dating a transgender person. “I said ‘I want to disclose to you, I want to be honest with you,’” she said. When Jackie got married, her boss asked what she wanted to do: It mattered to me a lot to have my management know that I was going to come out, and to have their support made me feel safer and made me more confident that the time I wanted to share a joyful moment in my life was the right moment, for me and for everyone else. Jackie attributes much of the support from management to gender, as her news director, general manager, and their direct corporate supervisor at the time were all female. “I think that they understood my concerns about safety in a way that a man wouldn't, because … they have kind of a unique perspective of the way that women are always kind of on guard.” Managers May Be Less Able to Discriminate A few of the interviewees stated that up-and-coming LGBTQ+ newscasters should not worry about being able to find a job because hiring managers are not able to be as selective as they once more. A couple of the younger reporters said they got jobs in higher markets than they probably should have as their stations were in last place, in need of staff, and weren’t able to be picky. Travis, who retired from reporting in 2021 after more than 20 years, said the “dying industry” needs to do more to connect with existing viewers and recruit new ones by allowing more authenticity on the air: “Stop trying to create cookie cutter anchors and let your humans be their friends and neighbors.” That includes allowing and encouraging LGBTQ+ authenticity. Veteran anchor Jackie said the industry is losing—in a good way—its ability to tokenize 173 talent through a “we need a person who is this” approach to hiring that prioritizes certain appearances over abilities. “We just need qualified candidates, people who are good writers, and who have a lot of integrity and who are ethical, and who can approach any issue, and any person with objectivity and can tell the truth,” Jackie said. She added that as fewer people enroll in journalism programs and pursue this career, qualifications should matter far more than individual identity, which should hopefully make newsrooms more inclusive. Nora noted that as newsrooms have struggled to retain staff, “stations are less and less able to be super choosy about the ‘type’ of person who is going to be there. That is especially prevalent at smaller markets, and once you get your foot in the door, you’re golden.” Another veteran reporter hypothesized a connection between decreasing station revenue and an increasing number of LGBTQ+ newscasters. He said that when he started, anchor jobs were high-paying and mostly held by straight White men. While the job could be taxing due to stress and the hours—which could take a toll on family life—the salaries and fame were often worth it. He noted that the cost-cutting solution of shifting from reporter-photographer teams to one-man-band or multimedia journalists places more physical demands on the people in those roles. “It's not only mentally exhausting, but it's now, for many people, physically exhausting. And so the people that are best equipped with that—that most likely don't have kids, and don't need to support a family—are gay men,” he said. This reporter claimed that TV news won’t be able to operate “without gay men, because we're your replacement for all the old, White, straight, highly-paid anchors that are no longer sticking around because the salary isn't what it should be.” Ownership Several of the newscasters said station ownership makes a noticeable difference in the visibility of LGBTQ+ content, and that certain companies make LGBTQ+ newscasters feel more 174 welcome. Newscasters at ABC (Disney) and NBC (Comcast) owned-and-operated stations said their corporations’ commitments to celebrations of the LGBTQ+ community—respectively branded “Out Loud” and “Pride is Universal”—have translated into positive treatment of staff and coverage. Tim said he’s been thrilled by internal memos sent within his company about gay couples’ engagements, anniversaries, and children: “I’m seeing a celebration of my community in those announcements.” Among ownership groups with stations in more than a dozen markets, Tegna (Gannett) received particular praise from multiple newscasters, and others recognized Hearst. Some of the newscasters expressed negative views about Sinclair Broadcast Group—one reporter even left when Sinclair bought his station—although there were positive comments about managers at these stations. One anchor at a Sinclair station wanted to do a special report about the ways recent legislation in their state would affect LGBTQ+ people in their community: When my executive producer and I were pitching this [to managers], we were thinking in the back of our heads that the only reason that they might not want to do this is because our station is part of Sinclair which leans conservative. The great thing about the station itself is that our news director kind of shields us from that sometimes. He jumped on board right away and so did [the GM], but there was that concern, would they go for this? The decision special report later received a nomination for a GLAAD Media Award. A couple of newscasters recognized the impact when an individual owns just a few stations rather than large corporations. Charles said he once worked at the country’s most gay-accepting, major market station. “Part of that is because the station was not owned by a large corporation. It was owned by a man … and his son was gay and out, so there was a different perspective,” he said. On the other side of things, Jonas said there were limitations to what he could say on air. “I had a lot to lose, if my single billionaire conservative boss did not appreciate what I was talking about. … I mentioned Pride events or Coming Out Day … and that's pretty much all I was able to do,” Jonas said. 175 Market Size and Demographics Many of the newscasters came out once they advanced to large market stations. While an initial interpretation of this information is that market size is a key determinant, there are several interconnected factors that often coincide with the large market experience: 1. It often takes several years to be comfortable with coming out. 2. It often takes several years of professional experience to advance to a large market. 3. It often takes several years to get married or to have a child, which are notable life events regularly mentioned in staff bios, on social media, and even on-air. 4. Large market stations have larger staffs, so the proportion of openly LGBTQ+ employees may be the same, but the number may be higher, providing strength in numbers. These variables may work in combinations with each other as well as market size, the ideologies and demographics of its viewing audience, and the ideologies of leadership. However, those large market size variables cannot be concluded as solely creating conditions for disclosure. There are also a growing number of openly LGBTQ+ newscasters in small markets. Some of these are people who have stayed in those markets long enough to come out with similar levels of experience to peers in larger markets, while others are younger newscasters who are opting to be out earlier in their careers. Tom, the most experienced of the reporters in this study, believes age is another key variable in the equation. Gallup polling found twice as many adults in Generation Z22 identify as LGBTQ+ than Millennials, and nearly five times as many than Generation X (Jones, 2022). Researchers expect Gen Z to “drive equity for LGBTQ+ in the workplace” (Watson, 2023). Traditionally, many who came out waited until they were older. 22 Gallup classifies Generation Z as those born after 1996, Millennials as those born from 1981 to 1996, and Generation X as those born from 1965 to 1980. 20.8% of Gen Z respondents self-identified as LGBTQ, 10.5% of Millennials, and 4.2% of Gen X. 176 Small Markets Most of the newscasters began their careers in small markets—defined here as Nielsen Designated Market Areas 101-210, each of which has fewer than 320,000 households. Several worked in markets with fewer than 100,000 households, and only a handful were out while at their first stations. Those who were not observed that their small markets tended to be conservative, and many are rural areas in which they did not feel LGBTQ+ people were particularly welcome. Jason’s first job was in a city of fewer than 40,000 people: You typically start off in these very small markets, in very insular types of environments where the community is a community. People don't really go, they don't really travel, that's how things have always run for decades and decades. Any sort of outside influence is like, “Oh, gosh, what are you doing? No, we don't do that around here.” In addition to being the only gay meteorologist he knew of in that market, he was also the first Black meteorologist, where more than two-thirds of the population is White. Already an outsider from a racial perspective, Jason didn’t want to add anything about his orientation. Other racial minorities mentioned the frequent lack of diversity in smaller markets during their interviews. “I think you have to be cautious, especially when those first few jobs come your way in those smaller communities. It's still a little worrisome out there. It's not as free as we'd like it to be,” said John, a Hispanic anchor. He said some of this is due to viewers, but also inside the stations, as “there's still a lot of [straight] White men who run [those] newsrooms.” Newscasters of all races who worked in small markets in the Deep South23 in particular said they were especially cautious about even being flagged as LGBTQ, and certainly weren’t going to publicly share that information. They also weren’t worried only about White viewers. The area is part of the Bible belt, and there are Black viewers who may vote for liberal leaning politicians but still have some conservative values, such as attitudes about LGBTQ+ people. Tim 23 The southeastern region which includes South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida. 177 spent six years of his career closeted while working in smaller southeastern markets with devoted viewers who saw a handsome Black man on TV and wanted to set him up with their relatives. I was concerned because [the area] had a strong Black women audience, a church-going audience, very conservative. … I took on the stress and the pressure of wanting to live up to a certain idea that I could be desirable to their niece, cousin, daughter, etc. So, yeah, that added to me wanting to hide it. He befriended a few other young, gay Black professionals in other fields, and watched how some handled being openly gay in public, but it was not until he moved to larger markets (Top 50 and Top 10) that he felt comfortable doing the same. Not all small markets are rural or conservative areas. There are small cities recognized as being LGBTQ+-friendly such as Reno, Nevada (DMA #112) and Palm Springs, California (DMA #146), the latter of which has an openly gay main anchor at its ABC affiliate. There are also conservative markets that have supported openly LGBTQ+ newscasters. Randy, whose entire on-air career has been as an anchor in a triple-digit market in the southeast, said one of the reasons he wanted to participate in this project was because of how well he was received: I wanted to make sure you heard from someone … from a small market, who was raised in that market, who came out as gay, and it did not affect my career at all. I wanted someone to know that it happened, it can happen, and it was a great experience. Randy said people often look at rural areas as intolerant and he “could not disagree with that more.” He said he matched all the optics of being a good anchor—"Tall, good looking enough, speak well enough, smart enough”—and that’s all his viewers cared about. He had two separate careers before getting into news, a transition that began when a station recruited him to do a weekly segment tied to his business, which turned into an interview show, and then an anchor role. The viewers accepted him at every step. “People really didn't care about the gay stuff at all. I ticked a lot of boxes to be a good anchor. The gay stuff was a very minor part of it,” he said. The study’s other newscaster who spent more than a decade at a small market station is 178 Jackie, an anchor at a station in the southwest. She said there is less anonymity in small markets: You lose a little bit of that ability to insulate yourself with people who may keep your secret, who may not think of it as a big deal, and who may not judge you for it in ways that other people might, and may not be surprised about it. Jackie said “everybody knows everybody” in smaller markets. She was occasionally able to put on a hat in public and blend in when she was perceived as a straight woman, but when she started to date a non-binary person who had some recognition as a public trans community activist, there was a lot more attention on Jackie. She lost some of the privacy she previously had in public: Not only were people who I was used to in my community looking at me and judging me and coming up to me and talking to me and having full conversations and never saying their own names, but also, then, the community of LGBTQ+ folks here in [this city] were even more observant of me, and my behavior and how I was acting. Jackie said pop culture has led audiences to have certain expectations of LGBTQ+ people, which she is glad to challenge. However, she perceives matters of LGBTQ+ visibility and viewer acceptance as less of an issue in larger markets, and hopes that spreads to smaller markets. Large Markets Many large cities have large LGBTQ+ populations as a result of gay migration (Lewis, 2016; Weston, 1995). This study’s interviewees who work in large markets—defined here as those with more than 800,000, which are Nielsen Designated Market Areas 1-40—said their cities were much more LGBTQ+-friendly than most of the places they worked previously. This was especially true for markets with at least 1 million households; the Top 10 all have more than 2 million. Larry, an anchor in a Top 10 market with one of the proportionally higher LGBTQ+ populations, said larger, liberal cities like his pay less attention to LGBTQ+ visibility, because there is so much of it regularly on display. “Those conversations aren’t being had in the same about us being out or being open,” Larry said, as it is so commonplace that individual examples are not particularly impactful. He said he feels fully welcomed and completely safe 179 and supported in his city, but admitted that he may be in a bit of a bubble in the urban area where he works and lives. He said there may still be viewers on the fringes of the market area—literally and figuratively—for whom his presence as an openly gay anchor is significant. As a result of these larger LGBTQ+ populations, there are also more opportunities for LGBTQ+ newscasters to be out and visible beyond their station’s airwaves and online presence. Larger cities often have numerous media outlets outside the television stations and daily newspapers, such as suburban weeklies and specialized alternative magazines that focus on culture and community (Arthur, 2023). These include dozens across the country that are targeted to LGBTQ+ readers in their cities, such as The Washington Blade and Metro Weekly in Washington, D.C., Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco, Windy City Times in Chicago, and Lavender in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Such news outlets have published feature stories on individuals in the LGBTQ+ community, including Tom and Sean. “I don't think I did any media in [a medium market], I just wasn't interesting enough or they just didn't do that kind of stuff, but fairly early on, there was something done on me in [a large market],” Tom said. Sean noted that many openly LGBTQ+ journalists, including the ones who write feature stories about other openly LGBTQ+ journalists, are in large cities where their presence is normalized. That can lead to overlooking smaller areas including exurban and rural communities within their Designated Market Area, which are still part of the viewing audience for a city’s broadcast news stations. The reporters may have different values. “I think that a lot of the coverage of that stuff is clouded in being written by someone who's in a major city,” Sean said. Large cities also typically have prominent LGBTQ+ organizations which offer resources such as medical and housing assistance, political advocacy, legal services, arts and entertainment ensembles like gay men’s choruses, and LGBTQ+ Chambers of Commerce. Involvement with 180 these groups through regular participation or hosting fundraising events provides further opportunities to be visible. Steve got much more involved in advocacy groups when he moved from a more conservative major city to a more progressive one, and said his affiliations with gay organizations served as his public disclosure: I just started doing so much LGBTQ content that people started connecting the dots. … It's pretty obvious. I didn't have a quote unquote, “coming out” moment, it’s just with all the Pride stuff and being Grand Marshal for the parade, and then hosting all the gay events, that's how people start to find out. Sean said that when he emcees these events, he asks his station to send a camera and get video as a way to bring more attention to the organizations and show his endorsement for their causes. Sean’s efforts to revive a chapter of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association led to a profile about him in his Top 10 market’s LGBTQ+ newspaper as a way to bring his city’s queer media members together. He said visibility may matter less to news consumers in larger markets. “So many gay journalists who are out are in major cities, and it's normalized. … A lot of the coverage of that stuff is clouded in being written by someone who's in a major city,” Sean said. Other newscasters said the LGBTQ+ social scenes in large cities helps with their comfort in life overall as there are more places to go, activities to do, and a larger queer community with whom to congregate. When people aren’t the only openly LGBTQ+ person at their station or even market, there are more opportunities to be out everywhere they go. Megan moved from a metro area with an urban population of about 100,000 people to a city with a metro population of more than 2 million. Gay colleagues at several stations swiftly welcomed her into their world: I immediately fell into this amazing group of LGBTQ newscasters and we hit the town every Sunday for brunch, and we became friends with the LGBTQ community in a way that I had never been. … I'm in this community. I'm not just reporting on this community, I'm in it. Now I have no hesitation about who I am. I have no reason not to fully be myself because everybody behind me is like, “Oh my gosh, you're representing us.” Megan had none of the safety concerns that existed when she was in a smaller market. She felt 181 comfortable enough to post “Happy Pride Month” on social media, and her online profile has grown to nearly 2 million followers, making her arguably the most famous lesbian in her city. While large markets may provide environments more hospitable to disclosure, many choose not to, for a variety of reasons. A reporter in Los Angeles said they were surprised by how many people at their station and their competitors were not publicly out. “You would think there are people out and proud in L.A., in the business, but you still find that there's still some people still kind of wanting to keep it quiet,“ that reporter said. Some newscasters get hired in large markets right out of college. That happened to Maria, a reporter who went to a capital city in a Top 50 market which she said was a fine place for openly LGBTQ+ people. However, she said keeping closeted was the comfortable thing to do and correct choice at that time. “I was just so young in my career that I didn't want to fumble that part of yourself, and I had enough to worry about just getting my career launched.” Maria said. These last two examples show that even when they are in progressive markets that accept LGBTQ+ people and in newsrooms with other openly gay personnel, the timing may not be right for people to come out, it may never be right, and it may be something they just don’t want to do. Dante stressed that people “could live in the most gay-friendly city … but the reality is, it is such a deeply personal thing to come out and it is your story to share.” The conditions may be perfect for many, but some may simplify prefer to remain invisible. Never Really In A few of the newscasters said they don’t have any particular coming out moments in their news careers because they don’t view themselves as having ever been “in.” Some referred to the “glass closet” where LGBTQ+ identity is known but not publicly acknowledged. Travis said his orientation was always obvious from his appearance and mannerisms. A few others said they 182 never deliberately hid their identity. Bill emphasized a difference between coming out and identifying. “People saw me at bars, people saw us out. We had parties. We had a life. People that knew us, knew us, people that didn't, didn't,” he said. A couple of newscasters expressed disdain for the term “coming out.” Larry said he struggles with the word “out” because it has a connotation that implies a person is concealing information, when they may simply not want to talk about their personal life but aren’t trying to hide anything. Stephen tries to reframe “coming out” as “inviting in,” an approach which he said allows people to know more about him if they want, but he’s not required to disclose. RQ3 asked how the individual newscasters describe the factors that discourage or encourage disclosure. While some LGBTQ+ newscasters choose not to disclose simply for personal privacy reasons, worries about negative responses from audiences and employers—which can be linked—are the key contributor to keeping quiet. Newscasters said they don’t want to be perceived as less skilled than their straight peers and hope they won’t be treated differently. Some of the female and non-White newscasters said they already sometimes deal with being viewed differently due to attitudes and stereotypes associated with gender and race, and adding sexual orientation can be another thing that sets them apart from the traditional standard of credible anchors. Privacy and prejudice can work in tandem, as some newscasters talked about safety concerns—and a few shared stories that confirm those fears can be well-founded. Several newscasters said a lack of comfort to come out to others in their lives contributed to delays in disclosure. Some weren’t out to family members, some said relatives warned them not to come out publicly, while a few had not even fully come to terms with their own identity until years into their careers. Attitudes of other coworkers and managers can be discouraging, as can station ownership of a station as some of the big corporations that own affiliates across the 183 country have conservative leanings. Newscasters often start their careers in small markets with very conservative audiences and small LGBTQ+ populations, making it hard to find community. Conversely, they cited supportive supervisors and colleagues, larger cities with sizable LGBTQ+ communities, becoming more established in one’s career, and simply gaining more self-confidence as elements that all helped encourage disclosure. Many of these factors work in tandem with an increase in professional experience and life events such as starting a family. Methods of Disclosure A moment that contributed to this line of research was when a former colleague shared a story about being reprimanded for accidentally outing himself in reference to a same-sex dating app, and his internal response about the inequality that existed as the same station not only permitted but promoted coverage during newscasts of its straight staff’s relationships. Other situations that inspired inquiry were observations of some coworkers code-switching between how they presented themselves in the newsroom and in the studio, shifting from openly gay to straight passing based on which side of the wall they were on, and seeing other colleagues make public moves out of the closet after years of hiding. The different tactics demonstrate there is no single best way to approach things, or panacea to make being openly LGBTQ+ a non-issue. Marriage and Parenthood Arguably the simplest way for LGBQ newscasters to disclose their sexual identity is through acknowledgment of a same-sex partner. This is most likely to occur when they are married, as men who mention a husband and women who refer to a wife are usually self-identifying as LGBTQ24. Maria explained that getting married made disclosure much more convenient since she clearly refers to her spouse: “I don't have to say the ambiguous terms of 24 Husband and wife are binary terms not fully inclusive of individuals who do not identify as male or female, although a participant whose partner identifies as trans and non-binary uses the term husband for her spouse 184 partner or whatever, I can just say wife, and people are caught up to speed. That was really important.” Fiancé(e) can also be ambiguous, due to the homophonous nature of the two words when spoken and spotting the presence or absence of the extra e when written. Some of this study’s older participants recalled instances in years past when acknowledgment of same-sex partners was taboo while talk of opposite-sex partners was appropriate and encouraged. Most of the newscasters said they do not see such inequality today, although Sean, an anchor in a Top 10 market, said that while he doesn’t have contradictory evidence, he doubts things are fully equal. He has a straight female co-anchor who talked about each stage of her relationship, from dating to engagement to getting married. “Part of me liked it because I like [her], she's great, and part of me was just like, would they do this for a gay co-anchor? Probably not,” Sean said. On Air Many of the newscasters noted that any on-air discussion of spouses, gay or straight, is most likely to come from anchors and meteorologists rather than from reporters. The in-studio hosts who spend time behind the desk or at the weather wall green screen have opportunities to banter with each other at the end of the show of after certain segments such as forecasts and lighthearted kicker stories. They may talk about what they plan to do or did during the weekend. Jonas, a meteorologist, tries to give more personal touches rather than just refer to the radar. With weather you’re ad-libbing. I can say whatever the hell I want on the wall. It's a great freedom, and that allows me to say, “45 mile-an-hour winds in the [metro] right now. My husband was out walking the dog earlier [and] he said it felt terrible.” Little things like that. I have that type of freedom. He said earlier in their relationship, it was easy to say “Oh, I did this with my boyfriend” during cross talk in a way to emphasize that he’s a normal person who did things with his significant other without it seeming like he was “forcing the issue” of LGBTQ+ acceptance. 185 A couple of newscasters noted that it often takes years into a person’s career to reach an anchor position, and that younger anchors often do so solo which cuts out a lot of possibility for cross talk. Long-term committed relationships are also less common at the beginning of careers. These are additional factors—which may work in concert with others—in why newscasters typically make themselves more visible after they’ve gotten a fair amount of experience. It is not just getting to a large market and then feeling comfortable coming out, but the other stages of their career and personal life which play a part. Mike decided when he moved from a medium-sized market to a major DMA that he was going to be out in all aspects of his life: I came into this market after being on TV there for eight years as “a straight person.” I decided, okay, coming to this city, I'm just going to start from scratch and tell everybody I meet that my boyfriend still lives in [another state] and we're trying to do long distance. Most of it was all internal stuff that really drove my decision, less than external stuff. Mike said it helped that his new city was so accepting of LGBTQ+ people. Although it might have been a more difficult decision requiring more thought for such a major step had he taken a job in a less welcoming city, “the truth was that I was tired of keeping that part of my life secret.” Mike had seen others disclose in connection with LGBTQ+ news content or Pride, but felt there was more pressure in specific moments like those. He chose not to peg it to anything specific: The first time I ever came out on the air was mentioning my boyfriend … on the morning show and we had a lot of time to cross talk. I’m sure it was a story that other people were talking about what they were doing that weekend, and I said, “My boyfriend’s in town, so we're gonna go do so and so.” Something along those lines. That felt to me like the better way to do it, because it was just not making a big deal out of it, not turning it into an issue, just having it be part of the normal everyday conversation. Several interviewees waited until they were engaged to mention partners on air, as talk about dating life can seem like less serious relationships. Larry commented that prior to his engagement, he did not have much life experience to contribute to conversation, outside of talking about the cost of dating. Once he was on the cusp of marriage he felt he had more to add: 186 I got engaged while I was here, and we talked about it. They did a whole video montage of my fiancé at the time, proposing to me. I talked about when I broke up with his ass. I talked about that too. I talked about the fact that our relationship didn't work out and what that was like. I talked about it on air. I've talked about my current relationship now and what that means to me. Most of the newscasters who are neither engaged nor married said they typically refrain from talking about that part of their personal lives. Dante, who is single, noted that newscasters who are not in relationships—both gay and straight—have fewer opportunities to self-identify (should they want) as they do not have partners to refer to during cross-talk. Others said they will typically observe how straight peers approach such topics. Megan said she follows their lead: If it is something that one of my counterparts at the anchor desk will also say on air, then I'm saying it on air… I'm not gonna talk about it all the time unless it's something that I see my co-anchors doing all the time about their straightness. In some of these instances, there is conscious thought about how LGBTQ+ identity may be perceived or be made visible, but for others, it’s just business as usual. Their relationships are no different from and no less valid than straight relationships, with no thought given toward visibility or representation. Tim said that if people are completely comfortable with themselves, “It's just going to be natural conversation, like you would talk about your child or your wife, your mother, I'm going to talk about my partner, the person that I love and that type of thing.” Online References to relationships can also occur in a newscaster’s staff bio page on the station website and on their professional social media accounts. Several interviewees said they don’t recall ever mentioning partners or their identity on air, but they have online. A couple of participants said this makes the information available to viewers, but allows viewers to decide if they want to know more about a newscaster. Maria said that can remove the burden of a particular coming out moment from the newscaster and requires the viewer to seek more about a person who has already sparked interest. David’s husband worked in his television market before 187 he did and people already knew who they were, so not only did he mention his husband in his bio, but he also included multiple pictures of them outside of work. I uploaded all that stuff. I decided what photos I wanted and things like that. … I actually got compliments from our digital director, they're like, “I wish more people would show more of themselves like this in a bio, and be really raw,” because at the end of the day, you're a public figure, and you're being welcomed into people's homes. Steve’s bio explicitly states he “is a proud advocate for the LGBTQ+ community” and mentions involvement in several LGBTQ+-associated organizations. Despite debuting on air in the late 1990s, he said, “This is all new, having anything on my bio is within the last three or four years.” Bill, who is married but whose official bio does not have any info associated with LGBTQ+ identity or organizations, observed that there are sometimes coded hints in some of these pages: “I see that more and more in a bio, where someone's bio is ‘he likes to hang out with his dog and works out at the gym a lot.’ Okay. That's sort of the go to,” he said. One of the other newscasters countered by saying regular viewers are familiar with his dog because he’s single and that’s who is in his life right now, but “I think if I was moving here with a partner and or a family, obviously, they would know much more about that side of my life.” The absence of LGBTQ+ information may not be a newscaster’s decision. Charles recalls writing about his husband, his daughter, and his dog when he submitted his bio, but the station website only mentions his daughter. Other On-Air Disclosures About half of the 25 participants in this study have said something about their sexual orientation in a form that extended beyond just a casual reference to a spouse. Several of these were just short segments about their weddings which included photos, but others integrated their identity into their coverage and were usually intentional about conveying the basic idea of “this is who I am and this is how I am connected to this issue.” It isn’t always deliberate, as happened 188 with Tom while reporting on the murder of Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan, both gay men: I remember when I did something in the Cunanan case and someone said, “Oh, did Tom just come out on the air?” And I'm like, “Okay, maybe.” I don't know, even then it just didn't seem important or relevant. I just didn't give a lot of thought to it. I mean, part of this is about just being out in your life. I think if you're out in your life, your family, your friends, your colleagues, the out on the air part is probably going to take care of itself, unless you think there's something to be ashamed of, or you're being weird. Tom said he was always upfront about being gay when talking with people who interviewed him for profiles, but he never felt compelled to say it in connection with anything he reported. Andy first said something on air while reporting about a discriminatory policy toward gay men, and while his story included the impact of the issue on others, he explained how it personally affected him, too. Several participants praised that tact. Charles especially applauded Andy’s approach: “What a great, courageous way to do it. You're also putting a spotlight on that issue, too. So relevant.” Travis was an intern at the time of the murder of Matthew Shepard, and he suggested that the station’s talk show discuss the hate crime. Like Shepard, Travis was an openly gay college senior, so the producers invited him to be involved in the televised conversation. As his career and his life progressed, he participated in numerous on-air discussions about marriage equality. He talked about getting married in another state, again when his state’s legislature approved same-sex marriage, again when opponents tried to repeal it, again when voters defeated that referendum, and again when the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Erica, Jason, and several other openly gay newscasters at their station participated in a special project their newsroom produced for Pride Month in which they shared stories about their self-acceptance and coming out journeys. There were individual segments posted online, and a version that aired which included parts from all of them intercut together. Some were previously public to viewers while for others, it was a coming out. “It's always been on social [media], that 189 sort of stuff,” Erica said, but “it would be the first on-air thing.” She stressed the power of strength in numbers, and Jason noted that it also helped that their news director was also openly LGBTQ+ and leading the charge. “There was such a wealth of support and encouragement, within the group of us that were also being interviewed, but also from the station, knowing that the station had our backs,” Jason said. Josh came out on air in conjunction with a series of special reports his station produced about active and proposed laws targeting LGBTQ+ people and subjects, such as bills about transgender treatment and drag shows, book bans, and an existing state penal code statute that outlaws “homosexual conduct.” His team produced a podcast miniseries to accompany the on-air reporting, to answer the question: How do you cover a story when you are part of it? Josh said much of the discussion with managers and members of the team was about transparency and objectivity, pre-emptively defending against detractors. “That was just part of the conversation that we wanted to have with viewers, and it just seemed like the right time and space, and I just went for it,” Josh said. He introduced the special coverage by saying, “Like me, many of the journalists working on this project are members of the LGBTQ community” and announced the podcast miniseries “to explain to our audience how that experience enriches our reporting and how we tell these stories in a fair, accurate way.” Randy acknowledged certain circumstances may prompt disclosures, citing Andy’s as a good way to do it. However, he hopes on-air announcements are ending because while the goal may be to eliminate perceived differences, highlighting LGBTQ+ status may reinforce them: That just makes it seem like we're making a bigger deal out of it, when what we want as a group is for this not to be a big deal. I don't like it when they're splashy. … If you have a major life event occurring, just treat it like it’s just a normal thing. I do think there are very under the radar ways to do this. I think I appreciate those the most. 190 Coming Out During LGBTQ+-Related Coverage Interviewees were divided about the appropriateness of newscaster disclosure during news coverage of LGBTQ+-related issues, such as what KABC reporter Tim Pulliam did in June 2023 for a story about Pride in the Park when he said, “[Mariah Carey] told the community, my community, that she loves us, and supports us.” Tom, the most veteran reporter among the participants with more than 30 years of experience, absolutely loved that phrasing: I think the way he did that, in terms of “my community,” I think it's brilliant. I think that's great. And I do think there is value for people knowing that there are gay folks on TV and knowing that their favorite reporter might be gay. I think that's great. I think about the kids out there who see that. I think that is a frickin’ wonderful way to do that. A notable time when Tom disclosed during a story was not something he added to the narration of a script or said during an on-camera live shot while looking at the camera to engage viewers. Instead, it was included during a series of questions of then Archbishop John Nienstedt. Midway through a 30-minute interview, months before the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, Tom asked Nienstedt about his opposition, which then led to talk about gay sex: NIENSTEDT: Sex is meant to take place within the context of a committed, married relationship between a man and a woman. TOM: Okay, but what about homosexuals? NIENSTEDT: Homosexuals need to lead chaste lives. TOM: They need to lead celibate lives? NIENSTEDT: Yes. TOM: Does that seem reasonable to you, that we should all lead the lives of priests? Tell me, Archbishop, why should I lead the life of a priest? NIENSTEDT: Because it is of human nature to express yourself sexually through a committed relationship. TOM: I am. I’ve been married. I’ve been with the same partner and husband now for 21 years. The archdiocese’s public relations person then interjected. Tom’s station posted the full 191 interview online and separately posted that exchange. A Facebook post with excerpt asked “Did Tom get too personal in his interview with Archbishop John Nienstedt?” Some of the viewer comments became part of a local version of “Meet the Press.” Tom strongly defended that disclosure: I thought that was a perfect use of me being gay and me being upfront with it, because it's very easy for especially religious leaders of enormous power to talk about theoreticals, and they get very uncomfortable when they're face-to-face with the person that they're oppressing. It was a wonderful moment and showed him for being the person that he is. Nienstedt resigned a few months later, when prosecutors filed criminal charges and a civil suit against the archdiocese for ignoring the actions of a priest who molested multiple teens. Between the extremes of those examples— “We’re here celebrating Pride” and “Your religious beliefs condemn me”—are stories about equal rights and discrimination. Jonas pointed to the idea of journalism giving voice to voiceless, and how journalists can use themselves as a primary source for how policies can affect people. Others seconded the idea of relatability, and said such disclosure is needed in some cases. Bill said it provides transparency for certain stories: If you're the guy that's assigned to the LGBT beat, it might be important to identify yourself and say, “Look, I'm covering this Supreme Court ruling and I'm a gay man. It's important to me, I'm going to be as fair as one possibly can be, but understand this is going to affect me.” Some of the other newscasters feel it is a bad decision to self-identify during stories about issues that affect LGBTQ+ people, including the individual newscaster, because it can introduce bias about LGBTQ+ issues. As the previous statement from Bill acknowledged, there is a personal connection to the issue which could influence the coverage despite all intentions to remain impartial. Even if a story is fair and balanced, disclosure that draws attention to a newscaster’s identity might make a viewer with negative LGBTQ+ attitudes try to find a slant that doesn’t really exist, in order to try to invalidate arguments that favor the other side. Nathan’s reporting regularly included Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” legislation as well as bills restricting 192 transgender rights, and he “was just kind of paranoid about what others had to say, if they were going to look at me as being biased.” Maria supports newscasters talking openly about themselves and their lives but has reservations when they are covering LGBTQ+ issues: If you're covering a piece of legislation that passed that bans gender affirming care for minors, then I feel like that [self-identification] has a great risk of compromising your integrity as a journalist, and it's not about you. So just focus on the people that are talking to you as part of the story. John said that during a special report about his state’s LGBTQ+ legislation, he had a moment when he considered coming out during a segment, but he decided he wanted the work to speak for itself without that extra comment. “I think viewers who watch us regularly know who I am.” Social Media Posts About Pride or National Coming Out Day Randy said he is fine with folks making public posts about Pride Month, provided they just “do something online and just close your computer. You're not there to do anything else, you're not showing up the next day in a Pride t-shirt.” Many of the newscasters said Pride, celebrated nationally in June but by a few cities at different times of years, can be an acceptable and appropriate time for newscasters to disclose. The same is true for National Coming Out Day on October 11. One of the anchors at Arch’s station has a weekly talk show with couch interviews, and she had him on as a guest to talk about National Coming Out Day and his story. However, several newscasters expressed reservations about these observances. What might be a safe opportunity for some to come out during a time when acceptance is celebrated could potentially be dangerous for others due to what could be considered an expectation for content. “People feel a lot of pressure to do something big to celebrate … and to put yourself out there if you haven’t. … That can push people to do things that they're not ready for,” Jackie said. There can also be unwanted demands to do something every June and October. “I don't really feel the need to go through and explain every single year, ‘this was my coming out story,’ 193 to everybody,” Maria said. She once wrote a letter to her younger self which a station featured as part of its Pride content. She said the process was “therapeutic” and hopes it made a difference to some readers, but it’s not something she needs to repeat each year or at each new station. John said he sees peers post the same story and photo year after year. “If it's your first time coming out, go ahead and post about it. I get a little annoyed by the ‘me me me’ broadcast has now become. ‘How can I interject myself into this holiday or this story?,’” he observed. John admitted to having done so when he was younger, but is happy for that spotlight to be elsewhere. The primary defense of ongoing Pride and National Coming Out Day posts is the likelihood new audience members haven’t seen them before, for whom that old information is new and might make a difference, especially youth discovering their own identity. Jonas thinks people look back to when they were younger and didn’t see that kind of visibility, but he said special occasions aren’t necessary if newscasters live openly throughout the year. “I feel like I do the representation enough on a daily basis. I don't need to make a special post like that,” he said. Larry bluntly said he is “not a fan of people … trying to show their connectedness to a particular group when it is convenient.” He said he will participate in Pride events and listen to other people’s coming out stories, but as a journalist he can make the biggest impact by doing his job without deliberately drawing attention to his sexual orientation: That kind of getting on the bandwagon doesn’t really contribute much because it looks artificial, and disingenuous, and it looks like someone merely just trying to take advantage of an opportunity that suits them and puts them in higher profile. Media Coverage of Out Newscasters Participants were split in their opinions about media coverage and attention spent on out newscasters, such as recent stories about on-air disclosures by Taylor Bruck in Ohio in December 2023 and Jason Hackett in Minnesota in May 2024. During talk about holiday plans, Bruck told a Spectrum News 1 co-anchor, “The extent of my traveling is probably going to visit 194 my girlfriend in December and that’s about it.” Buzzfeed’s headline was “A News Anchor Is Going Viral For Coming Out With Only One Extremely Simple Word” (Stopera, 2023). People went with “Ohio Anchor Comes Out On-Air and Reveals She Has Girlfriend in 'Big Moment': 'Visibility Matters'” (Brant, 2023), while HuffPost’s title was “Watch Ohio News Anchor Come Out As Gay In Subtle But Sensational On-Air Moment” (Dicker, 2023). Hackett appeared on the cover of the May 2, 2024, issue of Lavender, a bi-weekly LGBTQ+ magazine in Minnesota, along with an 1800-word feature story titled “Jason Hackett’s ‘Sunrise’ in the Twin Cities” (Stern, 2024). At the end of the next morning’s “Sunrise” show on Minneapolis NBC affiliate KARE, Hackett, one of the newscast’s three anchors, came out to viewers. He showed them the cover of the magazine and spent the next two minutes talking about agreeing with Lavender editors to share his coming out story. The station posted the clip on its website and YouTube, and Hackett also posted it on Instagram. In the following days, queer-targeted news sites such as The Advocate, Queerty, and PinkNews, and content aggregators including Yahoo! News published stories about Hackett’s disclosure. Features about gay newscasters are familiar to Lavender readers; four others from Minneapolis have appeared on the cover since 2017, and a 2018 story profiled a pair of anchors from Duluth. However, none of these were accompanied by on-air disclosures and did not get picked up by as many other outlets. Headlines from most of the sites with stories about Hackett had some version of “came out on live TV,” and all included the clip of the moment that “went viral” (Wiggins, 2024). While none of the interviewees were opposed to those newscasters coming out—several said they “loved” how casually and normally Bruck mentioned her girlfriend—or the information being disseminated more widely, many said they don’t think these moments are worthy of coverage and shouldn’t be considered news. David said people like Anderson Cooper and Rachel 195 Maddow already broke that ceiling and publicly out newscasters are no longer unique. “I don't know that that needs to continue to be a thing. Maybe [if] I'm the first openly gay person at my station, then maybe there's a little discussion about it,” David said. Several seconded that statement, such as Andy, who said it’s not as newsworthy as it used to be since “people know a bunch of gays work in the news. Me and my friends just kind of laugh at it like, ‘Oh, yeah, we knew honey. … Good for you for coming out but it's not a big surprise.’” Tom—in an interview conducted one day before Hackett went public—said he doesn’t think on-air announcements like that are appropriate. He said his attitude may be generational as someone in his 50s who has been out since college, but he doesn’t think a newscaster’s sexual orientation is interesting or relevant to viewers: “I don't think they care. I think there's a lot of ego involved in some of this with people thinking that they have to make some kind of pronouncement that they're gay on the air.” In a follow-up conversation specifically about Hackett’s video, Tom said, “The longer it went on the more indulgent it became. … The whole conversation seemed terribly out of date. It’s 2024!” Tom and a few others expressed criticism of newscasters (and others) who appear to rely on being gay for “their brand.” One participant admitted they thought going public about their orientation might work in tandem with another minority identity to make them more marketable. Larry views things differently, and said he struggles when he sees other LGBTQ+ newscasters put specific attention on being out: “Some people use it as a means of trying to kind of put themselves on a pedestal to be performative.” Others said it depends on a person’s prominence. Randy said big names “higher up in the pecking order” like Anderson Cooper are going to be more newsworthy as attention on personal lives comes with the territory of fame. Several pointed to Robin Roberts’s 2023 wedding as newsworthy. Jackie described disclosures by newscasters like herself as a “hyperlocal situation:” 196 It's a personal decision and there's got to be a decision with your employer, and then it's got to be a conversation with your audience. Any further than that, I don't know if that reaches the boundaries of needing to be picked up in all four corners of the nation, because people are just living their lives. Steve said viewers want to know about what celebrities do in their private lives, including local celebrity newscasters. He argued that if news outlets—especially those not specifically dedicated to LGBTQ+ coverage—want to report on these events, the approach taken is important: Gossip is gossip, and people are titillated and turned on by hearing about someone's private life. I would say, “What's the context?” Was Yahoo saying, “Hey, this guy came out, and we're proud of him,” or were they saying, “Hey, this guy came out, oh, this is big gossip.” If it's the first one, then yeah, I'm okay with it. If it's just continuing the cycle of gossip, yeah, it's sort of annoying. I don't think it's news when someone comes out. Others said it is important that the common context seems to have shifted from a reactionary “Can you believe?” to a celebratory “Isn’t this cool?” Steve understands why these events get treated as news now, but said he looks forward to when there is less of this type of coverage as people don’t think about it anymore, which he thinks will happen in the coming years. Megan, who has been the subject of multiple Yahoo! News articles, said she hopes the stories about her and others will continue. “The more press the better. I think the more we recognize and tell stories about people living in whatever way they feel most comfortable, whilst not hurting anyone, it's a win for everyone, right?” Her mindset about journalism is that the purpose of the press is to do good through media coverage and sharing stories. She said some disclosures can be overly hyped, but the stories and their visibility still matter: I don't even believe in the phrase “shoving it in people's faces,” because it's so overused. It's so exaggerated that a lot of the times that phrase is really just referring to the fact that it is in public, and it is in front of your face, and you cannot deny it. A few interviewees said that until there is further progress toward acceptance, these stories should continue. Dante said Bruck’s mention of driving to see her girlfriend shows LGBTQ+ people have the same daily experiences as their straight peers; drawing attention to the mundane 197 can help combat normalcy. He said critics will argue that no one would report on a straight person saying that sort of thing, but “the silver lining of it is it creates more visibility.” John said he’s happy to see people being authentic—“that’s always a good thing for me”—but also pointed out that the reports by national outlets about a newscaster coming out on TV are often based on video clips the newscasters themselves first posted on social media that then attract attention. “At the end of the day, a lot of those websites are just looking for content, happy content, and so if that's what they picked up, that's what they picked up,” he said. RQ4 asked the newscasters about methods of disclosure. Mentioning a same-sex spouse or significant others is often a simple way, either in on-air references or online in station bios or social media posts. Many of the newscasters, particularly the anchors and meteorologists who have opportunities for cross talk at the ends of the “blocks” of news segments to fill time before commercial breaks, can discuss things such as participating in activities with their partners and how the weather may affect their plans. Online information can also include involvement in LGBTQ+-related events such as Pride parades or organizations such as LGBTQ+ Chambers of Commerce or gay men’s choruses. Disclosures tied to Pride Month and National Coming Out Day are also common, through both social media posts and sometimes station-produced content. Some reporters and anchors disclosed during news coverage of LGBTQ+ topics as a way to emphasize the personal connection to and importance of those issues. There are also instances when other media outlets want to profile a newscaster, which amplifies disclosure to a much wider audience than viewers of a newscaster’s station’s broadcasts or online profiles. Although many agreed that talk about the presence of openly LGBTQ+ newscasters can be good for awareness, they hope it becomes so common and accepted that it no longer gets attention. Viewer Comments 198 All of the newscasters said the feedback and responses from viewers associated with their sexual orientation and identity has been overwhelmingly positive, but many have dealt with hostility and hate. Several specifically spoke about social media making it much easier for viewers to voice their opinions, which span the spectrum from folks in the LGBTQ+ community to allies to bigots. Most said they’ve learned to ignore negative comments and focus on positive ones, and several said they can’t recall any specific negative comments. Some reported any incidents to management, and felt confident managers would have their back. A few expected negativity and were surprised when it didn’t come. “It was more of my own insecurities. No one has, I was my harshest critic. No one else ever was as harsh as I was to myself,” Steve said. Positive Many of the positive messages have been from LGBTQ+ individuals or their loved ones, expressing gratitude for visibility and representation. These often refer to how “normal” the newscasters present themselves and their relationships; by being themselves, the newscasters normalize LGBTQ+ identity. Jackie, who recently moved to a management role for a different news organization, got a message from a viewer before she left with a single stand outline: “Thank you for just proceeding as normal.” He's a gay man and he said, it was refreshing to just see someone do their normal life after they had come out and not conform to the expectations that people might have of people who are who are queer, or who are gay. Andy came out during a story about discriminatory policies. His goal was to be a relatable, visible representative of who the issue affected, but the story had a wider impact as some viewers recognized broader issues of stigma and prejudice. An email from a 911 dispatcher stands out: [The video] just kind of came across their YouTube feed. He said that that day, he had talked a young gay man off the ledge, just [in] his normal job. When he got home, he saw my video. He was like, “Oh, my God, this is so important.” I thought that was really nice. That's the one I remember most. Months later, Andy’s dentist—who is gay—also talked to him about the story. He said he’d 199 never seen a reporter disclose on TV, despite regularly watching for more than two decades in a Top 10 market with a large LGBTQ+ community. The dentist said he had heard about gay journalists being punished. In a story for Pride Month, Andy shared more of what the dentist told him: He said, “It wasn’t that long ago, I can remember that reporters or newscasters would get fired for being gay. I know as a gay person how hard it is interacting in a straight world. Growing up I was not comfortable. If we could have more role models like me, or like you, Andy, the more the better.” That meant the world to me. It reminded me how important representation matters. … That makes me feel safe to be me. Others shared lighthearted comments that are often less direct about LGBTQ+ identity. Jason said most of his compliments are for how he dresses, but he also gets a lot of comments that he is “’a breath of fresh air.’ I have not gone into what the latter means, but I just welcome that and I appreciate it.” Megan said that while she has a few critics, “It's been a resounding ‘Megan, we love you no matter what. We love you in this market. We love watching you on TV.’” Several of the newscasters mentioned wonderful interactions while in public. Stephen said it can be hard to gauge audience reactions solely based on online comments, but appearances at station-sponsored or affiliated events allow real-life interactions where the enthusiasm of audience members becomes apparent. There are also chance encounters simply by being out in the field as part of the job. Shortly after Dante was announced as grand marshal of a Pride Parade, there was a big flood, and he went to a rural area to cover the aftermath: It's a place that you would maybe worry, “Is this an accepting place?” It's not the downtown area of my DMA. Somebody said to me, “Oh, by the way, congrats on being Grand Marshal.” This was, for all intents and purposes, a real cowboy kind of guy. I was taken aback, and at first I thought, “Is he like being serious? Is he teasing me?” I don't think he was. I think, for whatever reason, he felt compelled to say it, and I thanked him. I was pleasantly surprised by the interaction, because I went into it with probably a bias and thinking nobody here would accept that. That was wrong on my part. I just remember thinking, “You never know who's going to be an ally and who's going to support you.” Travis also observed that supportive comments sometimes come from somewhat surprising 200 sources. He said he has gotten positive feedback from a diverse group of people, such as having “evangelical pastors tell me how much they appreciate and like that I'm open minded in the way that I approach discussions and [how] I'm respectful of conversations.” Sean made a public appearance in April 2024 as a bartender at a charity event, and an attendee handed him an envelope which he opened later. It was a 700-word printed letter “so you can hang this on your fridge or something so that you can remind yourself that you are making an impact on people.” The viewer wrote about how meaningful Sean’s visibility has been: When it dawned on me that you were gay, I almost cried, because I finally felt seen. All my life I have seen gay men, like myself, portrayed as hyper feminine, shady, argumentative. Frankly, just a joke. Not to be taken seriously by anyone but women. But you Sean, you have shown me that we can be taken seriously and can demand respect and deserve respect as much as if not more than our non-queer counterparts. Negative Unfortunately, that effort to go beyond a simple online post—taking time to print and make sure a physical copy of the message gets delivered—also extends to hateful and insulting messages from viewers. At least three of the 25 newscasters recalled receiving multiple letters in the mail. David said this does not discourage him to change anything about how he handles his business. “I would rather be myself and get hate mail—which I've gotten—than to pretend to be something that I'm not and deny a huge part of my life just because then I would be accepted.” Some of the negativity is easy to dismiss as standard insults toward newscasters and not direct attacks on their LGBTQ+ identity. Charles, who now shaves his head, said he gets occasional rude comments but they never have anything to do with him being gay: “It's usually like, ‘Ugly tie, dude. What happened to your hair?’” Andy doesn’t recall any specific negative incidents associated with his orientation, but he has been the target of homophobic slurs: I've had people attack me online, but oftentimes, I don't think they're actually thinking I'm gay, they're just being an asshole and saying, “Hey, faggot.” It's kind of like, “Does he think I'm gay, or is he just being an asshole because he doesn't like the media?“ 201 Dante said he was worried when he started that people would send a message or post a comment using the same slur, and expressed relief that has never happened. He pointed out that fears about viewers ridiculing and potentially hating him because of his sexual orientation is not something his straight coworkers ever have to concern themselves with, “but I think in the back of every LGBTQ person's mind is, ‘Is somebody going to hate me simply for standing in my truth, existing how I was born, and living my life the way that I'm meant to?’” Dante’s worries were sadly confirmed when he was announced as the grand marshal of his city’s Pride Parade: My station posted it on our Facebook page, and there were definitely some negative comments, but more of them were positive and supportive. I liked that, but there were definitely negative comments. There were people who were like, “Who cares?” There were people who put the vomit emoji and things like that. That's not nice. That hurts. Fortunately, Dante did not suffer the same treatment on his Facebook page. John has observed a similar difference between comments made on newscaster’s individual pages and those posted on their station’s pages: The people on my pages were all like, “Oh my God, this is awesome, thank you for doing what you're doing.” Then you go to like the station branded content like the YouTube page. It's like, “This is wrong.” Yeah. That stuff that's not necessarily associated with me. Stephen noted that the followers and fans on his social media accounts were people who were supportive and chose to like his pages. People who didn’t want to see any queer-related content could unfollow, and any sort of hateful responses were “probably from a bot or someone that actually hadn't liked the page, that just found it somehow.” He maintained a positive mindset that there are more allies who don’t feel compelled to post positive replies, while the people with negative responses are far fewer. Those who feel compelled to say something are just being loud: It's important to not feel that distortion of feedback, because I used to just dwell on that one negative comment and be like, “Well, everybody hates me,” when in reality, it's just one person who had too much time on their hands. Mike brought up an old newsroom adage about putting a coffee cake recipe on TV and knowing 202 there would be complaints that it had too much fat. “That's always sort of been my mindset, that people are going to complain about the dumbest fucking stuff,” he said. Mike referred to the flak his female colleagues get just for changing hairstyles, and said it’s best to ignore the trolls: Imagine what it would take for you to reach out to a stranger and say that. You would have to be in such an awful place and hate your life so much that it's probably energy more well spent feeling bad for that person, than it is feeling bad from their comment, and I feel the same way when it comes to the less superficial stuff, the credibility issues. Megan said she was prepared for the negativity when she started making “Happy Pride Month” posts, and was able to dismiss the handful of negative comments because years of coming out in person to people she cared about made her less concerned with strangers. “It's like, ‘Haha, this person doesn't like me and that's hilarious,’ and then you just move on… They don't have to watch. If they don't like me, that's just not on me.” Unfortunately, she has had to block some users who persistently sent hateful messages as it was the only way to end those encounters. Some newscasters deal with negative comments by magnifying them for others to see. Travis once tweeted a picture of his children at play and a person replied “So sad how these kids don’t have a mom! Like every normal healthy family should.” He posted a screenshot of the thread on his professional social media pages along with a comment that said in part: Honestly, it just makes me sad that anyone looks at a family like ours and thinks this. I don’t even take it personally because it really speaks to a kind of pain that only this person can know and must feel at a very deep level. My true hope is that someday they might be able to see through their prejudice and recognize a family full of love and joy and that the gender of the two parents in a home is beside the point. Travis said that in some ways, he prefers when people make their bigotry visible. He wants their hatred on display because then it’s not hidden, from him or from the public: I think a majority of people when they're faced with stuff like that, they're like, “Oh, that's not me. I don't… I do not… That is not me.” I think people also, especially here in [this region], I think there can be some, “Oh, things are fine. I think things are good.” and “I look around and I don't see anything.” I'm like, “Huh, no, no, I think it still exists.” If anything, since 2016, that we've been taught is, “Oh, no, it exists, and there's a lot of it, and you can't just turn away from it and pretend that it doesn't exist.” 203 He said the effectiveness of shining a light on the “gross, awful, disgusting things” he’s heard is evidenced by the replies to those posts, and most of the messages he gets say “wonderful things.” Jonas argued that people who send hateful messages to a newscaster’s work account should not expect their identities to be protected. He once received a message during a morning show and posted a screenshot without realizing it had a business name in addition to the person’s name and photo. It turned out the man no longer worked there, but the company saw and made sure to distance itself from him. “By eight o'clock, the company had sent me and the station a statement saying, ‘This man is not a current employee. We do not support his statements.’” Social Media Pros and Cons As those examples demonstrate, social media allows LGBTQ+ newscasters to call out hateful comments and draw attention to the hostility. It allows them to post content about LGBTQ+ matters that aren’t part of their daily coverage, and engage in those topics directly with audience members who have chosen to follow them outside of their larger news operation. Several newscasters talked about how accessible social media makes them to viewers, although they had mixed opinions about whether that is a pro or con. David, a morning anchor, leans on the favorable side, and said viewers sometime send him instant feedback: They'll do it in the show, and the thing is, I respond. You'll get to a commercial break, and I'll respond to those viewers would be like, “Oh, I really liked that tie.” Or “I noticed that Jake wasn't on air today.” My husband, if he's not on his show over there, they’ll be like, “Is Jake okay? I see that he's not on air.” He said these are positive interactions, acknowledging his family the same as any other. David believes it is vital to take advantage of social media because that is where so many consumers get their news content, and online engagement is a way to retain viewers and reach news ones. Megan declared social media: “quite possibly the biggest change maker in LGBTQ+ rights in history.” An Emmy-winning morning anchor, some of her TikTok videos about life as 204 an openly lesbian newscaster have been viewed more than 10 million times. She talks to her nearly 1.9 million followers about topics such as not having seen lesbians in news while she was growing up, her parents’ journey to accepting her identity, and the importance of voting: I did see that there was this open space specifically for like, younger people, Gen Z, to get connected to news, but also recognize that I'm not very far off from you guys. I'm here, I'm queer, and to be able to throw kind of that representation into the ring, I just could have never imagined the response. Megan praised TikTok for providing a supportive network with people “unabashedly being themselves and discovering themselves.” In 2022, TikTok named her one of 12 LGBTQ+ TikTok Trailblazers and she received an emerging journalist award from NLGJA and The Curve Foundation, which publishes the lesbian magazine Curve. Those led to an invitation from the White House for a one-on-one meeting with Dr. Jill Biden, all of which further enhanced her ability to advocate for the LGBTQ+ community. She said management’s two rules are to keep posts about equal rights and not make clips during breaking news. Erica also noted how TikTok is helping LGBTQ+ newscasters find connections. She saw a video in which another woman mentioned being the only out person at her station, and she sent a comment that said “You are not alone. There are more of us out there than you think.” Some of the newscasters discussed Twitter’s shift to X and a decreased interest in using it, specifically after the documented increase in anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric on the platform after Elon Musk’s 2022 purchase. Several highlighted Instagram as a helpful tool for visibility, as people can post pictures and videos from behind the scenes and in their personal lives. “The most open I am is Instagram because it feels more just my tone, my speed, but even that I'm lessening more and more of, especially within this day and time social media climate,” Jason said. Charles mentioned Gio Benitez as an example of a prominent LGBTQ+ newscaster who effectively blends work and play on Instagram, where the ABC News correspondent and Good 205 Morning America weekend co-anchor has nearly 250,000 followers: He's gone a long way in changing this, because, for the vast majority of my career, social media was not something we did. … He just posts pictures with his husband all the time. Whether they're on vacation or they're at a dinner party, he has not divorced his personal life from his professional life. I think as you just see more of that, you will see the cultural shift. Maria has worked at several stations, and said social media has somewhat alleviated the burden of decisions related to coming out each time someone moves to a new market and has a new audience with whom to connect as they establish anew their reputation and credibility. “Coming out is a constant process. I’m out. I’m married. I’ve said ‘my wife’ on television probably 100 times, and yet … it feels a little trickier, every time you get into a new space.” She said viewers can watch a reporter and, if they want to know more about the newscaster, they can then look up the journalist’s social media accounts and figure things out from there. However, she said she hates that feedback frequently comes down to Instagram direct messages. Maria also worries about online attacks as a result of being so accessible: After I say something about my wife in casual conversation, or on air, or something like when we cover Pride stories in particular. I'm terrified of the thought that there could be the vigilantes on social media that come after me in the initial wave. She said what makes it worthwhile are the people who notice and take time to send a DM that says, “Hey, that was really cool that you did that, the way that you were really subtle about it.” There are others who see social media as a net negative. Some of the longer tenured newscasters who wanted to keep their identity private early in their careers noted that it was much easier to do so because they didn’t have social media. Employers often require newscasters to make a certain number of posts, and some encourage personal content. Tom said bosses who prioritize tweets about newscasters’ weekends over their news stories set a bad precedent: You’ve opened the door to people, and you can’t close that door and suddenly say, “No, 206 I'm a private person.” … You're making yourself an open book and if you want to do that, fine, but there's a trapdoor there and you're gonna get caught in that. Advice from other LGBTQ+ newscasters includes “Don’t post anything stupid” and “Don’t read the comments,” while Tom added, “They should all fucking get off social media. We're not interested in what you think about things. I think they believe their opinion matters too much.” RQ5 asked how newscasters describe viewer responses to decisions to be out. Many of the interviewees said they anticipated negative reactions. While those did occur, more for some than others, all of the newscasters said the feedback they received was overwhelmingly positive. A few newscasters could not recall any specific negative comments, although several said they have developed a thick skin against anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice. Many of the positive messages have been from members of the LGBTQ+ community and their loved ones, particularly parents. These often talk about how important it is to see LGBTQ+ people in positions they haven’t historically been. Several newscasters said they get compliments and words of appreciation for breaking stereotypes and for how casually and confidently they acknowledge their identity as not being any different than the straight members of the news team. These newscasters said that by demonstrating that it is okay to be not just gay, but out, they can help others—and the messages about how much their visibility matters reaffirms their decisions to be open. Several newscasters said that negativity is unfortunately something comes with having a job not only in the public sphere, but especially in a role that directly engage with the public. Hostility toward journalists overall has grown, and there are also people who will be petty toward folks at any level of celebrity. Some interviewees mentioned mean messages sent to their straight coworkers, mostly rude comments to women about their appearance. Newscasters said it can be important to share prejudicial feedback to show that it still exists and needs to be fixed. 207 While some feedback is in person—and the in-person remarks the newscasters shared were entirely positive—most viewer comments are digital. The emergence and explosion of social media has changed how many people interact with news, newsrooms, and newsmakers. It gives newscasters opportunities to promote themselves and the things that matter to them and enables them to engage with the LGBTQ+ community and its allies in more ways than before. Reporting on LGBTQ+ Issues – and Who Does It Interviewees said news coverage of LGBTQ+-related issues has increased across the board, both in quantity and quality. Charles talked about how newsrooms ignored many gay-related stories during the 1990s and early 2000s, which he said was largely due to how many news directors were straight White men who had biases about what stories held greater worth: That bias, when it came to LGBTQ+ topics, was that there is something second class or less than about it, and we need to keep that hush or don't talk about it, or pretend like it's not there. By that nature, it makes you a second-class citizen on some level. Steve, whose market has one of the Top 5 largest LGBTQ+ populations in the country (Conron et al., 2021), said LGBTQ+ people and issues now appear in his station’s stories just about every day. He said the reporters for 90% of those stories are straight, not because of any decision to keep queer reporters from doing those reports, but because good reporters can do any story. Steve said “it’d be kind of really cool” if a reporter wanted to “own that beat” and make LGBT-related coverage their specialty, although admittedly that would likely only work in big cities. Some of the reporters said they were usually the ones assigned to gay-related stories just because they are gay, while others had managers who made sure they did not do such stories—Travis experienced both. Arch said it makes sense to have LGBTQ+ journalists involved in coverage because of the perspective they can provide; he compared it having a male reporter do a story about prostate cancer, a female reporter doing a story about abortion rights, and a mother doing a story about maternal leave or the maternal mortality rate. Those always tasked with 208 LGBTQ+ stories said they appreciated the trust to handle stories with impartiality, but were frustrated by the expectations. David said he sometimes felt put-upon as his station’s gay anchor: I've been asked by management … “Hey, do you know so and so at the LGBT Center?” I'm like, “Is it because I'm gay?” That person kind of got red in the face, and they were like, “Yeah,” and I was like, “I mean, I do know them, but it's not just because I'm gay, it's because I am a journalist and my job is to know who's in my community.” He said that at one point, he told his producers that he doesn’t need to be the one who covers every gay story, just as his Black colleagues don’t need to be the ones who do every Black History Month story. Stephen had similar experiences tied to both his orientation and his race. Oftentimes people are like, “Oh, well, you're Brown, why don't you just cover this Brown story?” I see your intent, but I also see a burden, because it also tells me that no one else is willing to advocate for a community or tell their story. Stephen added that it shouldn’t matter who reports the story as long as they are culturally competent and makes sure that stories about queer people “are affirming and accurate.” He said that might mean having an LGBTQ+ colleague—or someone else either from the community or knowledgeable about it—to look things over before it’s aired or published, but that those folks will be happy to help. He also said out LGBTQ+ reporters might feel a burden to come up with queer stories, which he said they should feel empowered to do, but not required. He talked about managers quashing some queer stories: Because I've heard many times, “We just did a queer story. It's gonna seem like we have an agenda now.” … I would have to argue that queer stories are community stories. I don't know why we're assuming that our viewers would not benefit from this coverage, or that non-queer people wouldn’t pay attention. Josh said earlier in his career, he frequently pitched LGBTQ+ topics for stories which his then boss either shot down because he was gay or said “let’s hand it to someone who's not gay so they can do it and there won't be any questions. I just, after a while, stopped pitching those stories.” Another reporter said they confronted a manager when the station assigned two straight anchors to be the hosts and featured faces for an hour-long Pride special. The reporter said it was 209 bad optics to not have one of several openly LGBQ newscasters at the station in a lead role. The manager pushed back as they wanted to promote the station’s most prominent on-air talent: I understood her thought process. “I understand what you're saying, but this needed to go a different direction.” What was great though, is that she was amicable. She listened and she was not mad. She didn’t make me feel uncomfortable. She simply said, “You know what? You're right.” And they did it, but it took me and the newsroom to push for that. Travis said that when stations choose to feature LGBTQ+ staff as visible representatives in Pride Month promotional content, it is important not to be misleading about newsroom diversity and inclusivity: “If it’s, ‘Oh, it's Gay Pride Month, we gotta round up some associate producers and put them in this promo and say look at all the queer people who work here,’ that's a problem.” In addition to managers monitoring the right “balance” of the number of LGBTQ+-related stories—and who reports them—other newscasters mentioned managers wanting to keep the content within those stories “balanced,” Sean called that problematic. During one of his reports on marriage equality, his then news director knew he was going to talk with the executive director of their state’s LGBTQ+ equality advocacy organization: [She] said, “You need to make sure to get the other side.” I said, “What other side?” and she goes, “You need to get the other side.” … I said, “I want you to hear back what you're asking me to do. I want you to take what you just said, and put it in the realm of asking Bob Jordan25 to cover the other side of the civil rights movement. Would you do that?” She just looked at me exactly where I was. She goes, “You're right.” I said, “I know, and I don't blame you for having that knee jerk reaction of covering the other side.” In recent years, Sean’s managers have been more receptive to his pushes for LGBTQ+ coverage. Last year he and a gay colleague went to the current news director’s office and told him they were going to do a half hour special for Pride. “He goes, ‘Alright,’ and we made it happen.” Many interviewees said they are thrilled to see their stations’ openness to telling stories 25 A Black newscaster born in 1943 who spent more than 40 years on television, mostly on WGN in Chicago but also as a correspondent for the CBS Evening News. 210 about the LGBTQ+ community. The LGBTQ+ newscasters said they and their queer peers in behind-the-scenes roles are still typically the ones advocating for those stories, which is why it is important for them to be there. Jackie said that works hand-in-hand with their service to viewers: It's important to make sure that folks who are queer can see people who are like themselves reflected in their news and our news coverage. … It's important to bring those voices to the table in the newsroom in pitch meetings and in editorial meetings … advocating directly or indirectly by just being in the room. Jackie and several others emphasized that Pride Month coverage needs to be more than just lip service to the LGBTQ+ community. Stations must go beyond a rainbow logo and footage of Pride flags and parades, or they are at risk of rainbow washing26. Jackie said managers need to: not pander to people … if they're going to promote [Pride content], how to do so tastefully, how to do so without not only putting pressure on their employees, but pressure on viewers who may just be viewers and not want to be the queer viewers. David said his newsroom’s leaders used to just ask him what his ideas would be for stories they could cover, but there has been a dramatic shift in their approach: Now it's, “Pride Month is next month, we need to get our game plan together, we need to be intentional with this. … What events can we go to? How do we get involved in the community? Are we going to the LGBT community center and help them with their clothing closets for trans kids?” He said it is crucial that newsrooms do more than just show what happened in their areas, but actually go into the community, meet people, and actively do good for others. “Go beyond the story. Get away from the camera,” David said. Avoiding Perceptions of Political Bias A primary worry for many of the reporters and anchors was that viewers who knew they were gay would think they were biased or impartial in their reporting. Dante said LGBTQ+ 26 Also referred to as “rainbow capitalism,” “rainbow washing” is used to describe businesses that use Pride-related visuals and verbiage in their marketing during Pride month, but are not truly connected to the LGBTQ+ community and do not demonstrate their support throughout the year (Bowman, 2023; Rascoe & Sherburne, 2023). This practice is also referred to as pinkwashing and has its roots in the term “greenwashing,” in which companies market themselves or their products as eco-friendly without substantive efforts to actively aid the environment. 211 identity can be “perceived as having an automatic bias.” That concern applies to multiple issues, not just LGBTQ+-related, but several reporters said it is particularly associated with political coverage. Those who work in capital cities and have political beats have feared that LGBTQ+ identity might mark them as liberal partisans. A few of the newscasters referred to market research that shows television news consumers are older and many lean conservative, and a couple referred to “the misconception that TV stations are woke or liberal,” as Stephen put it. With audiences already shrinking, the newscasters don’t want to lose viewers by leading them to think that local news has an agenda—especially one that opposes a viewer’s. With so much political coverage in the media becoming partisan, local newscasters want to present neutrality. “I didn't want to be labeled as a certain way of thinking, especially politically, and I didn't want to come across as a biased journalist,” Erica said. Another political reporter, Josh, said it’s very important that viewers who see him think of the traits of objectivity, fairness, and accuracy, rather than thinking about whatever ideology they might infer from his orientation. “I don't want there to be any perception of my personal life possibly being matched with a political view that could hinder people from trusting what I'm saying as a journalist,” Josh said. These concerns have even extended into interview requests, including politicians and political activists. As part of being an ally for transgender and non-binary people, Nathan had—emphasis on had—"he/him” as part of his email signature and sometimes brought them up in conversation. When his governor and many state legislators started prioritizing bills targeted at transgendered people, he reconsidered: “I've been more paranoid about if I mention my pronouns. For instance, I'm reaching out to a lawmaker, and they happen to be Republican, and they see my pronouns on my email, what are they gonna think now?” He did not want them to refuse to answer his questions, claiming he was on the opposite side. Similarly, Josh said he 212 knew he would have to deal with “some very loud voices” who are not accepting of LGBTQ+ people and not supportive of their rights, and at times he would need to interview them: I wanted to still be able to talk to those people that might not support people like me, for the purposes of journalism, and it took a while to build that credibility. I think if I would have just on day one said, “I'm here and I'm gay, and you're just gonna have to deal with it, now let's do the interview,” it might not have been as promising. It took a while. However, Josh said it can be a disservice to viewers to report on the LGBTQ+ community and not let viewers know about being connected, because any appearance of efforts to conceal that identity could be interpreted as hidden bias or a lack of objectivity. By letting them know, “it will show them that you are perhaps better sourced or have enriched reporting, because you're part of that community and you understand the ins and outs better than anyone who might not be.” A few interviewees said journalism needs to move away from acting as if unbiased means giving both sides of an issue equal time and visibility. Sean said there is nothing biased or slanted about refusing to give 50% attention to something that has 20% support—or far less, citing climate change as a particular example. He said there is a false equivalence, and recalls calling people out on their demands to “show both sides” during the marriage equality debate. I'm not giving that any oxygen. You can do it as a sidebar if you want. I will mention it, but I'm not giving someone a voice. I will mention it in my track. … We don't have to give equal time to some guy who marriage equality does not affect them whatsoever. Megan seconded that attitude, and said that she ascribes to a more recent journalistic approach which opposes the pretense that journalists should not have opinions: I think we should be really transparent like, “Hey, this is where I come from.” Am I going to say, “You need to vote for this bill” or you don't need to vote? No. But I am going to say, “Hey, this will affect my wife's health insurance if we aren't [legally recognized as] married anymore.” Advocacy, Activism, Agendas, and Propaganda Several newscasters brought up a common complaint about LGBTQ+ visibility, which is 213 that it’s “shoved in the faces” or “down the throats” of straight people. The individuals who issue these grievances claim they aren’t homophobic and don’t care if people are gay, but they just don’t need to know about it. Mike said he still somewhat frequently sees posts that say: “I don't care that you're gay, but why do you have to talk about it?” Of course, the answer is “Because of what you just said. You.” … I've gotten a lot of, “Well, it doesn't matter, shut up, we don't care, just move on.” You prove my point, as soon as you say that. Sean said the prejudice is pretty clear, as it can come with even the slightest acknowledgement someone is gay, such as a lesbian anchor engaging in cross talk about how winter weather might affect her holiday plans: “Mentioning ‘I went to pick up my girlfriend at the airport.’ That's pretty normal, right? And I think still a lot of people would take that and say, ‘Why are you pushing your lifestyle in my face?’” Sean observed that no one would give a second thought to a woman who used the word “boyfriend” in the same way. It’s just a desire and intent to speak about oneself in the same way as everyone else. “There's a queer person living their life and going to pick up their girlfriend at the airport [just] kind of normalizes it,” he said. Sean and several others insist these intentional instances of visibility are not pushing an agenda, but providing opportunities for advocacy of the LGBTQ+ community. They underlined the difference between newscasters being advocates and activists. Advocacy, Sean argued, is using their platform to give others a voice. He said that means pitching LGBTQ+ stories and offering input on the storytelling to “advocate for better coverage” of subjects they know well: I'm trying to amplify voices in my community, but I'm not the story. I am just the conduit to tell someone else's story, and I look at that between the activist and advocate. I can advocate for different more diverse voices [and] faces on air. Being an activist, for me, is different. That is me saying, “I'm gay, blah, blah, blah. Look at me.” Sean said becoming an activist is taking a side in a story and telling viewers what they should think. To remain professional, journalists shouldn’t do that, but they can interview others who do. He added that it is important for LGBTQ+ newscasters to be advocates for other groups and 214 elevate other voices typically seen less in the media. Steve said his bosses have encouraged him to be an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community. They are glad he is involved with LGBTQ+ organizations and their events, and want him to talk about those things and promote them on his social media accounts: They've never told me I have to, obviously, but they said, “Steve, if you're comfortable with it, we want you to be front and center here,” because I'm one of the two prominent gay on-air people here. So, when they asked me to do it, I take it as a compliment, and as this growth of like, “Oh, I'm finally just advocating and being who I am.” He highlighted that he is not taking a stand on one side of an issue and telling people what opinions they should have; he just shows up and lends his tacit endorsement. A couple of interviewees expressed concerns that disclosures which deliberately draw attention to sexual orientation can border on becoming activism. Tom, the oldest of the study’s 11 reporters, said on-air announcements can change the focus from a news story to the storyteller. It makes a newscaster a subject or source in the story, which inherently takes a side: As journalists, we're all advocates of people. I think in a liberal democracy, it's okay to say, “Hey, we're all advocates of people being able to be comfortable and public with their identity and their preferences,” and that that's a good thing. But the reality is if you do kind of a public proclamation of some sort—and this is what I'm opposed to is kind of this grand, you know, “Tom’s got something to say this evening.”—it's so absurd. He said newscasters need to be mindful of whether they are going to be “a quiet role model” doing their job as an openly LGBTQ+ person, or perceived as a very visible activist. A few of the newscasters have become conditioned to anticipate reactions if they do anything to represent the LGBTQ+ community, both verbal and non-verbal. Stephen said there were times he might have a rainbow flag or other object in the background if he reported on a Pride-related story. “Some viewers may interpret that expression as propaganda. My parents certainly felt that,” he said. On the other side of things, Stephen also made clear to social media followers—supporters—that it was not going to be “queerness 24/7:” 215 It was queerness when appropriate, or queerness when I feel like, but it's not like this is a propaganda page. This is not a super gay page. It's just a journalist page of someone who happens to be gay. Erica equated being an advocate with being an ally, someone who is there for support. Her efforts toward LGBTQ+ visibility and representation aren’t directed at LGBTQ+ opponents to tell them their views are wrong; it’s for LGBTQ+ people, to affirm their existence isn’t wrong: If I wear a gay pride shirt … I have it in my head that if I ever get approached as a “Shame on you” kind of thing, or “What are you trying to do, push an agenda?” [I’ll say] It isn't. It’s to help someone who’s in the closet, who’s afraid, know that they're not alone. RQ6 asked how newscasters describe their roles in news coverage of LGBTQ+-related topics. Several newscasters said they sometimes get assigned to cover gay-related stories because they’re gay, while other times they aren’t allowed to do gay-related stories because they’re gay. LGBTQ+ newscasters believe their personal experiences and nuanced understanding of their own communities makes them well-qualified to do this reporting because of their insight and sensitivities, but they want their straight colleagues to be just as knowledgeable and equally capable of covering the stories just as well. Many of the newscasters said they have pushed their stations to increase coverage of LGBTQ+-related stories, and said managers need to trust that LGBTQ+ newscasters will be responsible in their reporting. Several newscasters said some viewers may look at openly LGBTQ+ newscasters as partisan, but even on stories where they feel strongly about a side and may have a personal stake, they can avoid promoting an agenda. Many of them hope to give voice to the LGBTQ+ community, but not be activists themselves. Concern for the Future, and Hope Jonas said he encounters a common misconception of “Oh, we solved all the gay issues, they can get married now, it's just fine.” He said there are numerous oft-overlooked challenges for openly LGBTQ+ people, such as concerns about housing discrimination and insecurity. 216 Further evidence of the room for growth are the pitying looks Jonas still occasionally gets when people find out he’s gay, and surprise from folks that he is so comfortable being open about it: For all the progress that I do see, and have experienced, there's still a ways to go. Imagine a woman stepping into a job, and “Oh, it's a woman?” like, “Holy crap!” No one would do that. That would be that would be unheard of, yet it's still something that that I see. Maria doesn’t think the issue will be resolved in her lifetime. She said there too many vocal opponents, including groups currently committed to waging “culture wars,” have targeted their sights on restricting LGBTQ+ rights. Maria said visibility remains vital for helping push back: It's hard for me to see a future where we aren't used as political pawns in some shape or form, and because of that, I think it's always going to be important for us who feel authentic and privileged enough to be ourselves and out to some public degree. John said LGBTQ+ journalists and public figures need to push past being pawns and take charge, and one way to do that is by reporting on anti-LGBTQ+ laws and campaigns. “Every election year, we sort of become a punching bag, and so that's why visibility during this election year is going to be very important for all of the gay, lesbian, queer news anchors out there,” John said. Minding The Ts and Qs Several of the cisgender newscasters who participated in this study brought up the plight of the transgender community. Maria questioned whether trans people are better off today than they were 10 years ago, as the spotlight on trans rights and advocacy efforts for equality has been met with “a lot of movement to try to suppress, and some of that is because it's not as potent of an issue so you don't have as much of an aggressive fight on the other side.” Other newscasters said the pushback against trans people is a step towards a pushback against gays and lesbians, which is then a step towards pushback against other minority groups. Travis said there has been an “erosion” of progress since the 2016 election as vocal opposition felt more empowered. Several interviewees pointed to the massive number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in recent years—the ACLU tracked more than 500 introduced in state legislatures in 2023, more than the 217 previous five years combined (Choi, 2024). Steve fears society took a big step back: I'm worried that there's going to be a generation—even if it's just five years, and then we fix it—but there's going to be a group of kids for five years that is going to start, not hating again, but not tolerating again. Interviewees emphasized the importance of being allies for the transgender community. One said things are comparatively easy for “the L and the G,” and another highlighted “a cutting edge going on out there, and it’s the TQ.” Sean said it is crucial to not become complacent about progress made by one LGBTQ+ subgroup without assisting the others: If you would have told me 30 years ago, when I came out, that being a White gay guy was going to be so like blasé, and like, normalized. I'd be like, “What?” And it is, like just being gay … I’m part of the part of the problem now. Like in the entire rainbow of the rainbow alphabet soup that we have, I am one of the problems, and I've worked on that as well, because there's a lot of work to be done. He said it is imperative for people like him to pay it forward by “elevating voices that aren't typically seen in a mass media, to the point where it’s just like normalizing. Normalizing trans people, normalizing queer black people, kids.” Others pointed to the growing number of labels by which people identify, such as pansexual, asexual, and demisexual, and the need to be allies for everyone within the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. There also needs to be a concerted effort to learn about each other. Stephen noted that he didn’t know any trans people when he reported on the death of a trans teen, which motivated him to find out more. “Just because I'm part of the community doesn't mean I know the community, The community is ever more expansive each day, and I'm still learning things as a as a queer person,” he said. Jackie’s openness about marrying a trans, non-binary person allowed her to connect with people of all kinds of identities, both within their community and others who found their story: Not only people who are queer, but people who are allies, people who may have kids who are queer, or have a trans person in their family or went to school with a person who's trans—a lot of those folks were grateful to see that reflected in their community, and in a person who they had access to and a person who had disclosed so publicly, because I think it normalized a lot for them as well, something that they maybe didn't know how to 218 react to. Some of them, I feel like it gave them a roadmap to celebrate or to just get them over that speed bump of “how do I deal with this? And what do I make of this? And how does this have to be,” because people are just people. Other broadcast efforts include ABC News’s “Who I’m Meant to Be” documentary produced annually for Pride Month. The series featured a variety of LGBTQ+ voices in 2021 and 2022, but focused entirely on trans and non-binary teens in its 2023 edition. This dissertation has been mindful about distinguishing LGBQ newscasters from LGBTQ+ for two reasons. First, gender identity and expression can be communicated differently than sexual orientation. While some transgender people are “stealth” and do not share their gender history, depending on a person’s physical characteristics and voice, they may have a harder time “passing” without being “clocked” or “read” as transgender. Second, the number of newscasters who openly identify as transgender or non-binary, using they/them pronouns, is tiny. Until the past five years, none who were out were in traditional TV reporter or anchor roles. Eden Lane worked in television in the 1990s but left before she transitioned in the early 2000s. She returned to screens a few years later on the Denver PBS station: first as a panelist on an LGBTQ+ newsmagazine, then as a freelance fill-in reporter at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and then as host of her own weekly talk show in 2009 (Moore, 2012). That year was also when she first started to receive attention for being transgender, but declined to discuss it until a 2012 feature in The Denver Post that claimed “she is believed to be the first transgender journalist on mainstream television anywhere in the United States” (Moore, 2012, para. 5). Zoey Tur, whom Leibowitz (2014) called “the most famous helicopter news pilot in American history” for numerous reports including the first live visuals of the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the police chase of O.J. Simpson in June 1994, came out as transgender in 2013. Tur was generally behind the camera, although viewers sometimes heard her voice over the visuals. Minneapolis reporter and anchor Jana Shortal stopped wearing a “lady uniform” of a 219 dress and a chin-length bob in 2016, switching to “pants, loafers, cropped hair and a pair of thick-rimmed glasses” when she got her own show (Compton, 2017, para. 3 and 5). Shortal began also using “they/them” pronouns publicly a few years later (Explore Minnesota, 2022). In June 2024, as part of its “New Faces at News 8” series, northwestern Illinois’s WQAD produced a five-minute segment introducing viewers to reporter Maddie Franz, recently hired after they completed an internship at the station. Anchor Shelby Kluver interviewed Franz about their background and some of their favorite news stories. At the end, Kluver said “You’ve seen some of Maddie’s reporting today, they reported on how to stay cool this summer.” There was no emphasis on “they,” which was the only reference to Franz’s identification as non-binary. Franz is now coworkers with a transgender journalist, who in 2022 became “the first on-air reporter in the U.S. to openly transition from one gender to another while at the same station” (Andersen, 2023). A story about that woman’s transition received a GLAAD Media Award nomination for Outstanding Journalism Segment and a regional Edward R. Murrow Award for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from the Radio Television Digital News Association. Those got the attention of Tom, who won a national Murrow Award for DEI the previous year: I think I've been pretty clear about how I think about gay folks on the air, which is ‘no fucking big deal,’ but I was like, “Okay, this, this person is a trailblazer. This is something I haven't seen. This is really interesting." And, you know, I will say that coming out was kind of necessary. It probably needed an explanation for the viewer. I've got a tremendous respect for them and how they handled everything. … She was a role model to trans people probably around the country who get to see someone like themselves on the air. Nora That reporter is Nora. She was the 25th and final newscaster interviewed for this project. She spent two years as a field reporter before moving to a newsroom role in Fall 2023, a decision she attributed to factors not associated with her transition. Nora said that within a few months of her on-air debut, she started “boymoding”—still presenting as male and using her male birth 220 name on TV and in professional interactions—as she began her gender transition: I was on hormones for eight months before I was publicly out, at least on air. There was a good chunk of time when I was Nora everywhere except my lower third27, basically. There were little things of my appearance that I couldn't necessarily change on air. She still wore ties, but began to grow her hair out and used various products to try to keep it behind her head. She wore rings and painted her nails “as a way for me to kind of keep in touch with who I really was, even if I wasn't able to put that on air just yet.” Nora said it was “kind of how I kept myself sane for that like portion of time,” since she could look at her hands whenever she wanted while also having them hidden from view of the camera—at least most of the time: One [thing] that really got me to accelerate things was, I was doing a live shot ahead of the State Fair, where I basically was like, “Oh, we're three days out from the State Fair,” I held up my fingers for like two seconds and put them down, and it was no less than like five emails about “Why does that man have painted nails? What's going on here?” Nora had some confidence that she would have at least some support within her newsroom, as both a meteorologist and an executive producer are openly gay men. She sought the guidance of the producer, who accompanied her as she went to tell the news director that she wanted to discuss the situation before it became problematic. “We're getting emails about my appearance. I want to explain what's going on here,” she told her boss. Managers were supportive and worked collaboratively on a plan so she could continue reporting, but as a woman with a new name: For a while I really did think I was just going to take a couple of weeks leave of absence, get everything ready, and just come back and the lower third was gonna say “Nora” and that was the announcement. But I gave it a lot of thought and decided that I feel like I have an opportunity to do some educating here, and I wanted to take it. She took some time off from work and allowed a photographer to document some of the final steps to fully becoming Nora, including filing the paperwork to legally change her name and following her as she returned to the newsroom. She sat for an hour-long interview with a former 27 A graphic that shows a newscaster’s name while they appear on camera. 221 colleague, which the station packaged into a six-minute TV segment to explain her new identity: By the time that I was ready to do the transition story and make the on-air announcement, I was emotionally ready. … I was in a position where it was like, “Okay, I think I kind of need to get this out there because I'm not going to be able to publicly avoid this question much longer,” and also I didn’t want to [avoid it], I wanted to be out. The station posted an additional 10 minutes of video online, and Nora recalls the web team “doing a lot of monitoring and moderating of that comment section, which I appreciated just because people on Facebook love to be mad at things. I didn't take it that personally.” Unlike the gay and lesbian reporters who said viewer feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, the response "was pretty even in terms of people who were like, ‘This is awesome, it's so cool to see you,’ and people who were not as thrilled about that.” She said she has become numb to the sting of much of transphobia, and the heartfelt comments she received far outweigh the negative: The one that really made me feel like, okay, someone found this story meaningful—which means it was good for me to do it—was when a local mom out in [a suburb of the city] shot me a message on Facebook and just said, “Hey, my name is so and so, I'm the mother of a trans child, and I saw your story and it just makes me really happy that there's someone I can show my daughter who's like her on TV.” That made me know—I wanted to sob when I read that and I'm not a huge crier—but just seeing that I was like, “Okay, this is actually getting traction. People are noticing this and finding it meaningful.” In addition to a report about her disclosure in her city’s newspaper, stories appeared on the websites of national outlets including the Today Show, People, and The Daily Beast, and international news organizations including The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, and PinkNews. She accepted every interview because “People like me don't always get that opportunity. … I feel some amount of responsibility to do so. I wanted to demystify my transition. I wanted to be approachable. I wanted to be … accessible for others.” Nora had seen coverage of trans swimmer Lia Thomas and feared she would be the next “punching bag for Libs of TikTok and Matt 222 Walsh28 and that sort of ilk, and it just didn't happen.” A trans woman who works for the ACLU advised Nora that she was different from typical targets because she clearly had the backing of her station and its large ownership group, and added, "They need to portray trans people as taking things from other people. You had a job, transitioned, kept the job. Not much to it." She was surprised the transition did not make her work life more difficult. While she got looks from time to time as it was “very easy to tell that I was a trans woman,” she never felt like she had a hard time getting what she needed for her reporting. She didn’t feel unsafe, and no one ever harassed her in public. She worried she might lose viewers, and that the audience might think less of her as a reporter. She emphasized to viewers that her reporting would not change. It would only improve as she gained more experience. Nora attributes some of the warm—or at least lukewarm—viewer response to midwestern politeness: “The environment for someone who is a little easier to identify as trans in the Deep South is not as safe to be making that disclosure.” The Trans Journalist Association has helped her find professional community, but most are at print or online outlets and none are in her market. As a solitary TV figure, she struggles when asked to speak authoritatively for other trans reporters. However, she felt comfortable sharing that many of her peers feel they are kept out of discussions of trans news coverage: I think that a lot of trans reporters really struggle with that feeling of “how do I encourage or participate in coverage of my community,” while some stations and outlets are way more nervous about perceptions of bias. They're worried that the community will think [those reporters] can't touch this, [that] that's not fair. I think that just kind of gets into traditional understandings of what is bias versus what is useful experience. She said in some ways, disclosure of being trans can lead to someone being kept out of those conversations, but not disclosing can lead to other conflicts, especially if a transition is not yet 28 The Southern Policy Law Center’s “Extremist Files” states, in part: “Matt Walsh is a blogger and talk show host for the Daily Wire website. He frequently demonizes LGBTQ+ people and promotes racist and anti-transgender conspiracy theories. Walsh leads a campaign against gender-affirming health care that has targeted American hospitals with harassment and has advocated executing doctors who provide health care to transgender people.” 223 apparent. Nora had started hormone replacement therapy but was still very much in “boymode” when her state’s legislature considered and eventually passed a ban on transgender female participation in girls high school sports; she couldn’t acknowledge her personal connection to the issue. “I still tried to encourage coverage of it, but at that point it was perceived as, ‘Why's this guy really, really into that? Why is he so into trans kids playing soccer,’” she said. Nora said she has been surprised how open to differences and laid back the typical viewer seems to be with regard to her existence as a transgender woman and her visibility on television. She identified the main problem as the vocal and empowered people who have spurred ongoing online and verbal attacks as well as legislative actions to malign transgender people as less than: People get so riled up about that aspect of us that it kind of gets lost, that at the end of the day, I am still a person who pays rent, and just wants to feel like a member of my community. I'm still a person who goes out and does things, and being trans is one aspect of that, but sometimes the outward perception is that that's the only thing about me, like me being trans overcomes me being a human. What’s Next? T and Q newscasters like Nora, Jackie, Jana Shortal, and Maddie Franz open discussions and doors. Their inclusion and participation in newsrooms encourages representation on screen, because as Charles noted, it’s harder for managers to minimize those groups: “We have a couple of folks at the station who are non-binary, which is great, because it brings that to the table too. You want to discount it? Well, great. ‘So and so is sitting right there. What do you say now?’” Several expressed concerns that as local news audiences decrease, those who remain are often older, more conservative, and set in their ways. “Do older people care about sexuality more than younger people? Probably,” Steve said. However, there is great hope for the future that LGBTQ+ acceptance will increase as the new and next generations gain influence. Several interviewees said they have faith in today’s youth and young adults. Charles emphasized the differences in attitudes of many in the over-50 crowd from the under-30. Steve said those born 224 after 2000 are the ones to really focus on, as they start to put their mark on the world: I think we went through this—the last 20 years, maybe longer—this thing where kids just stopped caring about sexuality, and they're just getting to the age where they're probably going to be graduated from college any day now and going into the workforce. … Right now, kids just don't care. Sexuality is not something they care about, and I hope that doesn't go away, because once they start populating our workplaces, then it won't matter. Jackie said the shift in overall attitudes has been refreshing, and she looks forward to society and the news industry continuing to move forward towards greater acceptance and equality. “As we have more diversity and more of our viewership reflected in our product, it will become more of a non-issue and we can focus on the good work of doing journalism,” she said. Along with hopes for acceptance, there is also hope that coming out conversations—and conversations about coming out conversations, such as this current research—will also become a thing of the past. David said a big part of it involves families and friends being prepared to immediately accept their loved ones without judging the sexual orientation or gender identity of who they love, and he thinks there are many places where that is already happening: “We're kind of in that moment where we're seeing that shift where you no longer need to really come out if you don't want to, because you can just say, ‘Hey, Mom and Dad, I'm dating Jake.’ ‘Okay.’” Charles said his teenage daughter and most of her friends are already of that mindset, not treating same-sex and opposite-attractions differently. He said that as the negative connotation of the words “a gay person” goes away—and people stop calling others “gay” in derogatory ways—then “it will not be any more of an issue than saying someone is straight.” At that point, the terms might just be a shorthand way to distinguish who someone is interested in as a partner. The identifiers will likely remain, but Dante believes they will be used less frequently: “Yeah, in the future, no one's gonna have to really say that (straight or gay) unless you're in a dating situation.” RQ7 asked what the newscasters identify as ongoing challenges and opportunities for further increases in visibility and representation. Many of them mentioned the ongoing efforts to 225 attack the LGBTQ+ community, especially transgender people. Several said it is crucial to report on these campaigns and to bring proposed laws to light and hold legislators accountable, and to use news coverage to bring attention to other issues affecting LGBTQ+ people. Some of the newscasters said one of the best things they can do is just continue being visible, in order to further demystify and destigmatize LGBTQ+ identity, and hopefully change a few minds. Discussion This study’s central finding is that, for the more than two dozen participants, the rewards of publicly being out as LGBTQ+ far surpass any repercussions. They are happier in their lives, both personally and professionally. Not spending energy or attention on concealing one’s identity means there can be more focus on the important functions of their work. By breaking away from traditional norms and expectations of what a newscaster is “supposed to be,” while also breaking existing stereotypes about LGBTQ+ people, they find comfort in living “authentically” as many phrased it. Some of these benefits are at an individual level: “finding success once I became fully me,” Megan wrote in a June 2024 “Happy Pride Month” TikTok. “It’s not like I don’t feel comfortable in a dress, but I feel 10 times more powerful, confident, cool, and I’m better on the anchor desk when I’m wearing something that I’m like, feeling myself in,” she said in a follow-up video posted the next day. Workplace studies scholars found openly gay workers have higher levels of productivity (e.g. Badgett et al., 2013; Powers, 1997; Winfeld, 2014). These findings support those results in a profession previously unexamined for LGBTQ+ productivity. Further positive outcomes are for others, particularly people who are LGBTQ+ and the people who love them. Many of the interviewees said they want their openness to matter by uplifting others, signaling that they too should take comfort and pride in who they are; even 226 those who said they were not motivated to make a difference acknowledged that their visibility does matter. Broadcast news studies have applied Pitkin’s (1967) political theory of representation—specifically the concept of descriptive representation, which is having representatives who resemble those they represent—when looking at similarities or differences between the racial diversity of on-air news teams and their audiences (Coffey, 2013; Richardson, 2022). Remarks from many of these newscasters about appreciative comments they have received from viewers suggest that this interpretation of descriptive representation is also applicable for sexual and gender minorities. As those viewer messages about the importance of visibility state, it is the act of verbal or written disclosure that makes that representation possible, in contrast to the representation recognizable by immutable physical traits. Several of the newscasters said they know LGBTQ+ viewers watch their station because of their presence. This is indicative of an audience wanting to see itself reflected on screen, not just in content, but in personnel. Poindexter et al. (2003) wrote that racial minority viewers can become discouraged and disenfranchised from watching newscasts when they do not see newscasters like them. For decades, viewers did not see LGBTQ+ newscasters; they may have been there, but not out publicly. Now that LGBTQ+ newscasters are knowingly seen, LGBTQ+ viewers also feel seen. The findings also suggest similar parallels to research about the influence of minority groups on the diversity of newsroom content. These include Gist’s (1990) conclusion that a newsroom with a narrow range of identities among its personnel will present a narrow range of voices in news coverage. The newscasters who talked about the resistance they have faced in pitching and pushing for stories about the LGBTQ+ community are usually the people going to bat for that coverage, as they personally understand the importance of the subjects, why they are meaningful, and to whom they matter—and that there is value in heterosexual viewers seeing 227 those stories, too. The newscasters advocate for investing resources to give those topics time in a newscast because traditionally they didn’t receive it, and they are the ones able to explain why LGBTQ+-related news content’s newsworthiness is more than just novelty. In addition to lending their own voice to these stories, when their straight colleagues also cover LGBTQ+ news, these newscasters can (and sometimes do) offer an eye for making sure things are worded correctly, and an ear when asked for advice. As David and others noted, there are times when LGBTQ+ newscasters become expected to be solutions for LGBTQ+ news coverage, whether that is answering questions or providing contacts or being the persons always assigned to the stories. It would be better for all newscasters at a station to be able to tackle such topics with aplomb, and also to pitch those stories; news teams that have a deliberate, collective mindset towards diverse and inclusive content benefit a greater number of their current and potential viewers. As several newscasters including Charles noted, when minorities are at the table, they have a better chance of being heard. When it is a newsroom table, those ideas can eventually be heard by many more. While there are plenty of positive payoffs, every one of these newscasters took a risk. They all subjected themselves to potential denigration by deciding to share part of their identity, something they were not required to do. They often first took that risk with friends and family, and then again with coworkers, and then with viewers—the nature of the never-ending coming out process. These results join earlier findings that LGBTQ+ newscasters continue to have concerns about negative responses from viewers and overseers (Eddings, 1996; Gross, 2002; Magrath, 2020; Ostertag, 2006; Rodriguez, 2019). A few of the participants, especially those who have been in the industry longer, gave examples of times in their careers when their orientation actually affected their career, such as some positions being off-limits, and managers 228 advising others that they should not make themselves visible. Many of the newscasters found there are still bigots willing to make themselves visible online, but the much larger number of allies affirms decisions to disclose. Even though they are all out, a few of the newscasters said there are still instances in which they engage in code-switching or are deliberate about not disclosing or drawing attention to their identity as a sexual or gender minority, given particular circumstances. The good news is that these are exceptions rather than the norm—and the overall goal for these newscasters is to be part of a new norm in which being openly LGBTQ+ is fully equal to be being openly cisgender and heterosexual. That is to say, something fully accepted and not even discussed. They want everyone to be able to, as many of them do, talk about their spouse or partner without anyone giving a second thought about that person’s gender or gender identity. Limitations A key limitation of this study is that all 25 participants are publicly open about their sexual or gender minority identity, so it lacks the perspective of closeted newscasters. As several interviewees stressed, this does not necessarily mean those who are not out fear negative consequences. Many of these newscasters were able to discuss the time before they came out publicly and the factors that discouraged disclosure, but public opinions on this issue are ever-changing. It is important to identify how the current climate of audience attitudes and the concurrent raft of anti-LGBTQ+ legislative actions may contribute to decisions not to disclose. The invisibility of these newscasters creates a challenge, as it is not just convincing someone to discuss why they don’t discuss something, but reaching them for recruitment. Future Research In addition to interviews with newscasters who are out, interviews with four other groups 229 would be beneficial for ongoing research into this topic. Conversations with news directors who supported some of these newscasters and others—particularly about decisions to produce content that highlights openly LGBTQ+ talent—could provide insight into their managerial reasoning, as well as possibly gain access to information about benefits to the business side, such as shifts in viewership numbers or advertiser interest with the addition (or reveal) of an out LGBTQ+ newscaster or an increase in LGBTQ+-related news coverage. As suggested by one interviewee, future research might include interviewing straight newscasters about their participation in station-sponsored Pride content and the consideration they give to coverage of LGBTQ+ issues. Another group to potentially investigate is the LGBTQ+ audience, to learn of any effects of LGBTQ+ newscaster visibility on their viewing habits and their opinions on news coverage of televised disclosures. The LGBTQ+ audience overlaps with a final group, which is LGBTQ+ journalism students who plan to pursue careers as newscasters. Instead of looking back at moments that have happened, it is important to know more about what the next generation anticipates and how they intend to navigate the intertwined personal, professional, and public spheres. NLGJA has college chapters at nearly a dozen universities, with at least one added during the 2023-24 academic year. The current NLGJA president recently attributed the association’s growth “in part to greater visibility of on-air reporters, anchors and podcasters who openly identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community” (Sillick, 2024, para. 7). His statement was unclear if this is due to their visibility serving as a recruitment tool, or if people are more willing to join once they openly identify professionally, so this is also worth learning. It appears newscaster disclosure will remain a topic of regular attention, picking up additional steam every June when news operations, including TV stations, participate in Pride and search for content—often turning inward. As Pride Month 2024 entered its final weekend, a 230 Minneapolis newspaper published another profile of Jason Hackett, eight weeks after his on-air disclosure. He told the reporter he knows he made the right decision, and the article concluded with a quotation from Hackett that echoed the words of most of this study’s participants: "I just wanted to be my authentic self," he said before heading back to his North Loop home to walk his dogs. "I wanted to show other people that you could live your truth out loud and not be ashamed about it." (Justin, 2024, para. 22) Conclusion The theoretical value of these studies is their contributions to better understanding the impressions viewers form of and the connections they form with newscasters. Impression formation theory looks at the judgments people make of others, based on evidence, as well as assumptions. This dissertation’s first study used one-way mediated messaging—audio-visual information transmitted through a screen—that included a first-person communication directly from a target to a perceiver about an oft-stigmatized part of the target’s identity. The focus of the speaker’s message, however, both in that instance and others, was not on himself and that trait, but on other matters, and the research aimed attention at assessing other aspects of the target. As the speaker directed attention elsewhere, the trait was presented in a minimal way so that other traits could be prioritized and become parts of the public persona. Stigma and stereotype studies that look at reactions to negatively-perceived information often focus on what happens with information that a target would prefer remain hidden, but in this case the newscaster wanted the information known. He did not need to disclose, but did so as a way to enhance his reporting with a personal touch about the inclusivity of the event he and thousands of others attended. Not disclosing would not have detracted from the report, so this was not a case about hiding a stigma, but instead choosing to introduce it, and joyfully so. Although the newscaster had times in his career when he would not have done so—and actively 231 avoided others knowing—there was no debate for the discloser in that instance about whether or not to disclose. He was not dealing with decisions about timing to manage audience reactions, and negative viewer responses did not concern him. The results show such confidence is valid. In the second study, Steve talked about how free he felt once he finally “ripped off the Band-Aid” by coming out to everyone; his advice to all LGBTQ+ people is to do the same as early as possible, so that any necessary healing can go ahead and begin. If people are going to be upset, those feelings are likely inevitable, and early disclosure means opportunities for recovery also begin earlier. If no one gets upset, time hasn't been to lost to worrying how they'll react. These findings are not only applicable to newscasters and sexual and gender minorities. People in other professions who possess a trait that may carry a stigma—something that has no bearing on their knowledge, abilities, or job performance—have to think about whether or not to share, and if so, when and how. These results suggest that knowing about an audience can help in forming a decision about timing. The findings suggest benefits of making a connection between the stigmatized trait and something else such as a cultural issue or event—in this case stating “this Pride event includes people like me”—and then demonstrating the irrelevance of the trait to anything else. If a target naturally fits subtle, casual, normal acknowledgments of a trait into conversation, it may not mask the trait entirely, but by minimizing the significance of a trait as one part of a much larger whole, a target can suggest to a perceiver that they should look at the bigger picture. If, however, a target says “this is the most important thing about me,” it tells a perceiver to take notice and possibly make that trait the center of attention. Pre-existing attitudes can be activated, and not only people with negative stereotypes; even people who share the same trait may not be particularly receptive. LGBTQ+ newscasters viewed disclosure connected to a pertinent news issue as more appropriate and effective than a seemingly out-of-the-blue “I have 232 an announcement,” which can make that trait the identity rather than one facet of many. These studies also expand Pitkin’s (1967) representation theory into the impact of LGBTQ+ visibility in media, embodied in visible members of the media. Visibility of LGBTQ+ people has increased immensely, in overall numbers but also in positions of prominence. In 1974, Ann Arbor City Council member Kathy Kozachenko became the first openly LGBTQ+ person elected to office in the United States; 50 years later, there are three LGBTQ+ women serving in the United States Senate, as well as a gay governor in Colorado. Scholars have recently employed representation theory in assessments of the symbolic representation effects of LGBTQ+ politicians (Tremblay, 2022), as well as media coverage of those politicians (Greenwald et al., 2023). Media coverage of celebrities in entertainment and sports have also contributed to acceptance, but the current research shows that such symbolic representation also applies to the media that produce that coverage, even when it’s independent of LGBTQ+ topics. The practical value of these studies is to inform newscasters, newsroom managers, and media studies scholars about the impact of LGBTQ+ visibility in broadcast news. The goal is to provide a better understanding of viewer perceptions—and the perceptions newscasters have of those viewer perceptions—and offer guidance about attracting, retaining, and serving audiences, as well as identify discriminatory issues involving LGBTQ+ representation in broadcast news. These findings are important for inclusivity and acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals in the broadcast news industry and society at large. Visibility of members of marginalized groups is known to contribute to normalization and acceptance. Studies show workplace performance can decrease due to pressures to assimilate through covering or passing, so there can be positive results for LGTBQ+ newscasters who are comfortable to openly present their authentic selves. These results show that a majority of viewers are accepting of LGBQ newscasters, and 233 disclosure does not have a strong negative effect on perceptions of credibility and likability. This should be encouraging for closeted LGBQ newscasters who have considered coming out, and may make them feel more comfortable doing so. It is important that these results are not interpreted as a recommendation or suggestion for anyone to come out. Disclosure is a personal decision and no one should feel compelled to do so. Closeted LGBQ newscasters who have considered coming out may be discouraged by the findings that there are people with negative LGBQ attitudes who view them less favorably than people with positive LGBQ attitudes. Newscasters may want to consider the attitudes of the audience in their particular media market. If they are in places where large portions of the population are opposed to Pride celebrations and equal rights for sexual and gender minorities, they may want to avoid drawing attention to their orientation. They may also want to assess the support their newsrooms demonstrate to news coverage and presentation of LGBTQ+ issues. The knowledge that disclosure can prompt an unfavorable response from a single viewer might be enough motivation to stay closeted. Weighing risk versus reward is a personal decision that can only be made by an individual, as everyone has different life circumstances and other variables to consider. As one interviewee observed, “Me saying I'm gay, who does that benefit?” It could be the newscaster. It could be others. Their visibility might attract LGBTQ+ viewers who know their stories are considered worthy of coverage, and trust that such coverage is “in good hands” and will not be discriminatory. If a viewer likes an openly gay reporter, perhaps that connection could lead them to be more receptive to reports of LGBTQ+ discrimination and more supportive of LGBTQ+ equality. Future research can look at the salience of messages when presented by LGBTQ+ newscasters—particularly in coverage of LGBTQ+ issues—furthering knowledge in queer media studies by adding to theories of social identity involving stigma. 234 News organizations should provide supportive environments for all employees, and allow gay newscasters the same opportunities as straight newscasters to talk about their loved ones. As more stations produce Pride Month and other LGBTQ+ content and coverage, visibility of LGBTQ+ newscasters should become more commonplace. Normalization is the ideal outcome. It must be stressed that this research takes place at a specific moment in time with dueling pushes for and against LGBTQ+ rights and equality. Its findings may be fleeting, but hopefully in a positive sense. Research that shows continued decreases in stigmatization will likely lead to more individuals who feel comfortable coming out, further proliferating an increase in LGBTQ+ visibility and acceptance. This virtuous circle of acceptance should shrink the imbalance in power between the binaries of straight and not. 235 Participant List Andy Reporter Arch Reporter Bill Meteorologist Charles Anchor Dante Anchor David Anchor Erica Reporter Jackie Anchor Jason Meteorologist John Anchor Jonas Meteorologist Josh Reporter Larry Reporter Maria Reporter Megan Anchor Mike Meteorologist Nathan Reporter Nora Reporter Randy Anchor Sean Anchor Stephen Reporter Steve Meteorologist Tim Anchor Tom Reporter Travis Reporter 236 References ABC News. (2012, October 8). Sam Champion on engagement to Rubem Robierb: 'I am so, so lucky'. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/10/sam-champion-on-engagement-to-rubem-robierb-i-am-so-so-lucky ACLU. (2024, June 21). Mapping attacks on LGBTQ rights in U.S. state legislatures in 2024. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2024 Akpoghiran, I. P., Umukoro, S.E., & Okoro, E. F. (2017) Viewers' perception of female newsreaders' appearance on television and its influence on attention to news. Journal of Social and Management Sciences, 12(1), 101-117. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt. Alwood, E. (1996). Straight news: gays, lesbians, and the news media. New York: Columbia University Press. Andersen, K. (1961). An experimental study of the interaction of artistic and non-artistic ethos in persuasion. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin]. Andersen, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Sciences & Politics, 30(2), 216-219. Anderson, K. (2009). Benign bigotry: The psychology of subtle prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, K. J., & Kanner, M. (2011). Inventing a gay agenda: Students’ perceptions of lesbian and gay professors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1538-1564. Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394-400. Anderson, N. H. (1968). Application of a linear-serial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 354-362. Anderson, N. H. (1973). Serial position curves in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97(1), 8–12. Anderson, N. H. (1974). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 7: 1-101. Anderson, N. H., & Barrios, A. A. (1961). Primacy effects in personality impression formation. 237 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 346-360 Anderson, N. H., & Jacobson, A. (1965). Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 531–539. Anderson-Minshall, D. (2020, March 30). Why LGBTQ journalists are more important than ever now. The Advocate. https://www.advocate.com/exclusives/2020/3/30/why-lgbtq-journalists-are-more-important-ever-now Andrews, T. (2017, May 10). 'I've got nothing to hide': Fox News's Shepard Smith talks about being gay. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/10/ive-got-nothing-to-hide-fox-news-shepard-smith-talks-about-being-gay/ Asbrock, F. (2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. Social Psychology, 41(2), 76-81. Asch, S. E. (1946).Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 41, 258-290. Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and validation of a parasocial interaction measure: The audience-persona interaction scale. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 79-89. Aviles, G. (2019, June 3). In special Pride message, NBC anchor announces her engagement to a woman. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/special-pride-message-nbc-anchor-announces-her-same-sex-engagement-n1013271 Badgett, M., Durso, L. E, Mallory, C., & Kastanis, A. (2013). The business impact of LGBT-supportive workplace policies. The Williams Institute. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Business-Impact-of-LGBT-Policies-May-2013.pdf Balon, R. E., Philport, J. C., & Beadle, C. F. (1978). How sex and race affect perceptions of newscasters. Journalism Quarterly, 55(1), 160-164. Baltin, S. (2021, October 1). Danielle Miskell’s story: How a former Iowa network anchor has turned an abusive relationship and arrest into helping others. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebaltin/2021/10/01/danielle-miskells-story-how-a-former-iowa-network-anchor-has-turned-an-abusive-relationship-and-arrest-into-helping-others/?sh=692a27676852 238 Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Seuil. Barton, B. (2015). How like perceives like: Gay people on “gaydar”. Journal of Homosexuality, (62)12, 1615-1637. Batten, J., Ripley, M., Anderson, E., Batey, J., & White, A. (2020). Still an occupational hazard? The relationship between homophobia, heteronormativity, student learning and performance, and an openly gay university lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(2), 189-204. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohns, K. D., (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. Bausell, R. B. (1994). Conducting meaningful experiments: 40 steps to becoming a scientist. SAGE Publications, Inc. Beaujon, A. (2012, November 28). NLGJA president: ‘The AP is probably correct’ to discourage use of ‘homophobia’. Poynter. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/196490/nlgja-president-the-ap-is-probably-correct-to-discourage-use-of-homophobia/ Belous, C. K., Wampler, R. S., & Warmels-Herring, T. (2015). Gay male adaptation in the coming-out process. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 19(1), 55-71. Bergh, R., Akrami, N., Sidanius, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Is group membership necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-evaluation of why prejudices are interrelated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 367–395. Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563–576. Bernstein, J. (2012, October 7). Patrick Abner and Thomas Roberts. New York Times, ST, 18. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/fashion/weddings/patrick-abner-and-thomas-roberts-vows.html Bettinsoli, M. L., Suppes, A., & Napier, J. L. (2020). Predictors of Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbian Women in 23 Countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 697–708. Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783–793 Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). The impact of gender role and sexual orientation on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 160–173. 239 Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6(1), 9–36. Bogart, L. (1980). Television news as entertainment. In P. H. Tannenbaum (Ed.) The entertainment functions of television (pp. 209-249). Psychology Press. Bohlman, D. (2024, January 22). Long Post Alert As many of you know, I’ve always been fairly open with talking about my mental [Image attached] [Status update]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/DavidBohlmanReports/posts/pfbid0H2yhYH7ZdQHGNG3fmL1fud4tPdz2Rfui9KkbkUYeo7PmXiCEH7nPGTMoV58RfFmLl Bonds Staples, G. (2016, December 6). Life with Gracie: CNN anchor opens up about domestic abuse. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/health/life-with-gracie-cnn-anchor-opens-about-domestic-abuse/tq4izYQT3DjGZ84rAbreTO/ Boren, J. P., & McPherson, M. B. (2018). Is coming out in the classroom still an occupational hazard? A replication of Russ, Simonds, and Hunt (2002). Communication Studies, 69(3), 242-250. Bose, D. (2021, October 11). ‘Feels like freedom.’ What National Coming Out Day means to LGBTQ Charlotteans. The Charlotte Observer. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article254827102.html Bostwick, E. N., & Lookadoo, K. L. (2017). The return of the King: How Cleveland reunited with LeBron James after a parasocial breakup. Communication & Sport, 5(6), 689–711. Bowman, E. (2023, June 13). LGBTQ+ creatives rely on Pride month income. This year, they’re feeling the pinch. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/13/1181614890/lgbtq-pride-month-creators-companies Bradley, A. (2017, October 24). Ali Bradley: #metoo. WPMT. https://www.fox43.com/article/news/local/contests/ali-bradley-me-too/521-9e25051b-2010-4e86-b1f3-1459b98cdaae Brann, M., & Himes, K. L. (2010). Perceived credibility of male versus female television newscasters. Communication Research Reports, 27(3), 243-252. Brant, B. (2023, December 11). Ohio anchor comes out on-air and reveals she has girlfriend in “big moment”: “visibility matters” (exclusive). People. https://people.com/ohio-anchor-taylor-bruck-comes-out-on-air-reveals-she-has-girlfriend-exclusive-8413620 Brenan, M. (2023, October 19). Media confidence in U.S. matches 2016 record low. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512861/media-confidence-matches-2016-record-low.aspx 240 Brewer, M.B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Skrull (Eds.), Advances in Social Cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, M., & Amoroso, D.M. (1975). Attitudes toward homosexuality among West Indian male and female college students. The Journal of social psychology, 97(2), 163-168. Brownlow, S., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Facial appearance, gender, and credibility in television commercials. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(1), 51–60. Buck, D. M., & Plant, E. A. (2011) Interorientation interactions and impressions: Does the timing of disclosure of sexual orientation matter? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 333-342. Burke, K., Kazyak, E., Oliver, M., & Valkr, P. (2023). LG but not T: Opposition to transgender rights amidst gay and lesbian acceptance. The Sociological Quarterly, 64(3), 471–492. Burke, S.E., & LaFrance, M. (2016). Lay conceptions of sexual minority groups. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 635–650. Callais, K. (2016, August 29). Charges dropped against former WPSD Local 6 meteorologist. WPSD. https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/charges-dropped-against-former-wpsd-local-6-meteorologist/article_1e083440-5730-5313-8790-6358063f3749.html Capehart, J. (2024, May 12). Black and LGBTQ voters key in 2024 election “we’re going to be the deciding factor”: Kelley Robinson. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/jonathan-capehart/watch/black-and-lgbtq-voters-key-in-2024-election-we-re-going-to-be-the-deciding-factor-kelley-robinson-210745925850 Capehart, J. (2024, May 20). “He is dangerous”: Rep. Balint on the Trumpian threat speaker Johnson poses to democracy. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/jonathan-capehart/watch/-he-is-dangerous-rep-balint-on-the-trumpian-threat-speaker-johnson-poses-to-democracy-211225157642 Carrillo, E. (2020, June 20). Domestic violence charge against former DA spokesman dismissed. Albuquerque Journal. https://www.abqjournal.com/1468199/domestic-violence-charge-against-former-da-spokesman-dismissed-ex-special-prosecutor-said-that-was-insufficient-evidence-to-move-forward.html Cathcart, W. L. (1969). Viewer needs and desires in television newscasters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 14(1), 55–62. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 241–256. 241 Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2022). Confronting first impressions: Motivating self-regulation of stereotypes and prejudice through prejudice confrontation. In E. Balcetis & G. B. Moskowitz (Eds.), The handbook of impression formation: A social psychological approach (pp. 435-458). Routledge. Chattopadhyay, A., Dahl, D. W., Ritchie, R. J. B., & Shahin, K. N. (2003). Hearing voices: The impact of announcer speech characteristics on consumer response to broadcast advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),198-204. Chen, J. M., Quinn, K. A., & Maddox, K. B. (2022). Bridging the gap between spontaneous behavior- and stereotype-based impressions. In E. Balcetis & G. B. Moskowitz (Eds.), The handbook of impression formation: A social psychological approach (pp. 93-115). Routledge. Chung, D., deBuys, B. D., & Nam, Chang S. (2007, July 22-27). Influence of avatar creation on attitude, empathy, presence, and para-social interaction [Paper presentation]. Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Design and Usability, 12th International Conference. Beijing, China. Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). Keeping control: The importance of nonverbal expressions of power by organizational spokespersons in times of crisis. Journal of Communication, 64, 1160-1180. Clausell, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Social Cognition, 23(2), 161–181. Coffey, A. J. (2013). Representing ourselves: Ethnic representation in America’s television newsrooms. Howard Journal of Communications, 24(2), 154–177. Coffman, K. B., Coffman, L. C., & Marzilli Ericson, K, M. (2017). The size of the LGBT population and the magnitude of anti-gay sentiment are substantially underestimated. Management Science 63(10), 3168–3186. Cohen, E. L. (2010). Expectancy violations in relationships with friends and media figures, Communication Research Reports, 27(2), 97-111. Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in responses to the dissolution of parasocial relationships. Mass Communication & Society, 6(2), 191-202. Coleman, R. (2018). Designing experiments for the social sciences. Los Angeles: Sage. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. 242 Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475. Combs, C. (2021, May 31). Hijab-wearing TV news reporters in the US seek to inspire: 'Eventually this shouldn’t be exciting or new'. The National. https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts/hijab-wearing-tv-news-reporters-in-the-us-seek-to-inspire-eventually-this-shouldn-t-be-exciting-or-new-1.1231049 Compton, J. (2017, November 2). Outfront: Television News Anchor Leaves “lady uniform” at home. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/outfront-television-news-anchor-leaves-lady-uniform-home-n816926 Cone, J., & Ferguson, M. J. (2015). He did what? The role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 37–57. Cox, W. T. L., Devine, P. G., Bischmann, A. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Inferences about sexual orientation: The roles of stereotypes, faces, and the gaydar myth. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(2), 157-171. Crocker, J., Hannah, D. B., & Weber, R. (1983). Person memory and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 55–66. Cruz, I., Granda, C., & Pulliam, T. (2023, May 2). Members of Writers Guild of America to begin strike today after weeks of failed negotiations. KABC. https://abc7.com/writers-guild-of-america-strike-contract-expiring-hollywood/13201501/ Cuda Kroen, G. (2022, July 2). So you had an abortion? #MeToo. Cleveland Plain Dealer. https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/07/so-you-had-an-abortion-metoo.html Cummins, R. G., & Cui, B. (2014). Reconceptualizing address in television programming: The effect of address and affective empathy on viewer experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 723–742. Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. Dane, S. K., Masser, B. M., MacDonald, G., & Duck, J. M. (2015). When “in your face” is not out of place: The effect of timing of disclosure of a same-sex dating partner under conditions of contact. PLoS ONE, 10(8), 1–29. Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 259-266. Davison, G. C. (1976). Homosexuality: The ethical challenge. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 157-162. De Block, A, & Adriaens, P. R. (2013) Pathologizing sexual deviance: A history. The Journal of 243 Sex Research, 50(3-4), 276-298. De Houwer, J. (2014). A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 342-353. Demby, G. (2013, April 8). How code-switching explains the world. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/08/176064688/how-code-switching-explains-the-world Dennis, M. J., & Ahn, W. K. (2001) Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory and Cognition, 29(1): 152–164. DeSouza, E. R., & Olson, M. (2018). Coming out in the classroom: still an occupational hazard?. Educação, Ciência e Cultura, 22(3), 163-173. Diaz, J. (2006, September 8). Out in the sunshine. Beantown Cubanito. https://beantowncubanito.blogspot.com/2008/02/out-in-sunshine.html Dibble, J. L., & Rosaen, S. F. (2011). Parasocial interaction as more than friendship: Evidence for parasocial interactions with disliked media figures. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(3), 122–132. Dicker, R. (2023, December 12). Watch Ohio news anchor come out as gay in subtle but sensational on-air moment. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/taylor-bruck-comes-out_n_65788afde4b0db9d2ab71e60 Doan, L. & Mize, T. D. (2020). Sexual identity disclosure among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Sociological Science, 7(21), 504-527. Dooley, S., Dawson, M, & Effron, L. (2016, September 9). ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas on her long battle with alcohol and her road to recovery. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/abc-news-anchor-elizabeth-vargas-long-battle-alcoholism/story?id=41980399 Dyer, R. (1997), White, London: Routledge. Eck, K. (2021, May 18). Iowa weekend anchor arrested for domestic violence. TV Spy. https://www.adweek.com/tvspy/iowa-weekend-anchor-arrested-for-domestic-violence/231332/ Eddings, K. (1994). Should gays cover gay issues? Columbia Journalism Review, (March/April), 47-49. Eisend, M. (2006). Source credibility dimensions in marketing communication—a generalized 244 solution. Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science, 10, 1–33. Engstrom, E. (1996). Audiences’ perceptions of sources’ credibility in a television interview setting. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 83(2), 579-588. Engstrom, E., & Ferri, A. J. (1998). From barriers to challenges: Career perceptions of women TV news anchors. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 789-802. Engstrom, E., & Ferri, A. J. (2000). Looking through a gendered lens: Local U.S. television news anchors’ perceived career barriers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 614-634. Escobedo, P. M. (2015). Source credibility and race: Black viewers’ responses to television news anchors (Master’s thesis, Iowa State University). Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu. Etling, L., & Young, R. (2007). Sexism and the authoritativeness of female sportscasters. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 121– 130. Eubank, B. (2021, August 3). Celebrating Pride: KVUE staff members share their stories. KVUE. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/austin-pride/austin-pride-kvue-staff-stories/269-ef4a7dcd-bae3-43b0-a4de-36c338ea9784 Explore Minnesota. (2024, May 6). How local LGBTQ+ News anchor Jana Shortal celebrates Minnesota Pride and builds community. AFAR Media. https://www.exploreminnesota.com/article/jana-shortal-kare-11-minnesota-pride Eyal, K., & Dailey, R. (2012). Examining relational maintenance in parasocial relationships. Mass Communication & Society, 15(5), 758–781. Ferguson, C. (2018, September 30). ABC News anchor reflects on mental health, on-air panic attack during speech. The Daily Orange. https://dailyorange.com/2018/09/abc-news-anchor-reflects-mental-health-panic-attack-speech/ Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. 245 Forsyth, M. (2014). The elements of eloquence: Secrets of the perfect turn of phrase. Frank, S. (2012, July 31). Television host pulled over for 'driving while black'. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/television-host-pulled-over-driving-while-black-flna917565 Frederick, E. L., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012). Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 481-502. Freeman, H. (2011, April 25). Rachel Maddow: 'I'm definitely not an autocutie'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/apr/25/rachel-maddow-us-news-anchor Fuller, L. (2016, February 16). Local 6 meteorologist and husband arrested on marijuana charges. WPSD. https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/archive/local-6-meteorologist-and-husband-arrested-on-marijuana-charges/article_a9731b03-019e-54de-b253-d6b71ccec715.html Fuller, L. (2016, February 18). A letter to viewers regarding Tori Shaw. WPSD. https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/a-letter-to-viewers-regarding-tori-shaw/article_61f574fd-86f9-554a-a8fc-194ed6afea24.html Gallup. (n.d.) Guns. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx Gallup. (n.d.) LGBTQ+ Rights. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx Gaudio, R. P. (1984). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69(1), 30-57. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2011). The associative–propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59-127. Gawronski, B., Geschke, D., & Banse, R. (2003). Implicit bias in impression formation: Associations influence the construal of individuating information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 573–589. Gay Cable Network. (1993, August 19). Gay USA, Vol. XI, Episode No. 34. New York University’s The Fales Library & Special Collections. http://hdl.handle.net/2333.1/sj3txdg1 Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305. Gist, M. E. (1990). Minorities in media imagery: A social cognitive perspective on journalistic 246 bias. Newspaper Research Journal, 11(3), 52-63. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970s. The Journal of Sex Research, 15, 108-118. Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46, 210–217. Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Golebiowska, E. A. (2003). When to tell? Disclosure of concealable group membership, stereotypes, and political evaluation. Political Behavior, 25, 313-337. Gong, Z. H., & Eppler, J. (2021): Exploring the impact of delivery mistakes, gender, and empathic concern on source and message credibility. Journalism Practice, 1-20. Goodnight, B. L., Cook, S. L., Parrott, D. J., & Peterson, J. L. (2014). Effects of masculinity, authoritarianism, and prejudice on antigay aggression: A path analysis of gender-role enforcement. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 437–444. Grabe, M. E., & Samson, L. (2011). Sexual cues emanating from the anchorette chair: Implications for perceived professionalism, fitness for beat, and memory for news. Communication Research, 38(4), 471-496. Greenwald, G., Haleva-Amir, S., & Kama, A. (2024). “An out gay man in the parliament”: New aspects in the study of LGBTQ politicians’ media coverage. Media, Culture & Society, 46(1), 3-20. Gross, A. E., Green, S. K., Storck, J. T., & Vanyur J. M. (1980). Disclosure of sexual orientation and impressions of male and female homosexuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 307-314. Gross, L. P. (2002). Up from invisibility: Lesbians, gay men, and the media in America. New York: Columbia University Press. Guittar, N., & Rayburn, R. (2016). Coming out: The career management of one’s sexuality. Sexuality & Culture, 20(2), 336–357. Gulevich, O., Krivoshchekov, V. & Sorokina, A. (2023). Gender identification and attitudes toward gay people: Gender and sexuality differences and similarities. Current Psychology, 42, 7197–7210. H.R. 8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. (2022, December 13). 247 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404 Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes; Applications (2nd ed., pp. 1–68). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hamilton, D. L., & Thurston, J. A. (2022). Perceiving group attributes spontaneously: Broadening the domain. In E. Balcetis & G. B. Moskowitz (Eds.), The handbook of impression formation: A social psychological approach (pp. 228-255). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003045687-15 Hanania, J. (1994, September 3). Out of the TV Newsroom Closet : KNBC's Garrett Glaser Breaks Ground as an Openly Gay On-Air Reporter. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-03-ca-34212-story.html Hanimann, A, Heimann, A, Hellmueller, A., & Trilling, D. (2023). Believing in credibility measures: Reviewing credibility measures in media research from 1951 to 2018. International Journal of Communication, 17, 214-235. Hargett, J. (1999). Students' perceptions of male and female instructors' level of immediacy and teacher credibility. Women and Language, 22(2), 46. Harris, D. (2014, February 12). How an on-air panic attack improved my life. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/dan-harris-air-panic-attack-improved-life/story?id=22469789 Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal Of Communication, 61(6), 1104–1121. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences) (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Hays, J. (2021, February 4). KWTX anchor shares story of 20-year addiction, journey to sobriety in new podcast. KWTX. https://www.kwtx.com/2021/02/04/kwtx-anchor-shares-story-of-20-year-addiction-journey-to-sobriety-in-new-podcast/ Hebl, M. R., & Skorinko, J. L. (2005). Acknowledging one’s physical disability in the interview: Does “when” make a difference? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(12), 2477-2492. 248 Hellmueller, L., & Trilling, D. (2012). The credibility of credibility measures: a meta-analysis in leading communication journals, 1951 to 2011. In WAPOR Hong Kong 2012: paper presentation World Association for Public Opinion Research/Public Opinion Programme, The University of Hong Kong. Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1-2), 1-21. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477. Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 40–66. Hicks, G. (2020, December 17). Beliefs and stereotypes about LGBT people. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Hill, J. (2022, June 28). Why I’m Talking About My Abortion. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/dobbs-roe-overturned-abortion-choice/661408/ Hiskey, D. (2010, February 25). How ‘gay’ came to mean ‘homosexual’. Today I found out. https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/ Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 1–55. Holm, N. G. (2005). Best practices of television journalism in Europe: How Anglo-American on-camera styles violate cultural values, Denmark as a case study. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 60(4), 376–389. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 19(3), 215-229. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. (1959). Communication and persuasion. Psychological studies of opinion change (3rd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hu, M. (2016). The influence of a scandal on parasocial relationship, parasocial interaction, and parasocial breakup. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(3), 217–231. Hu, M., Young, J., Liang, J., & Guo, Y. (2018). An investigation into audiences’ reactions to transgressions by liked and disliked media figures. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(4), 484–498. 249 Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357–372. Huff, R. (2009, August 30). Anxiety attacks nearly put an end to HLN anchor Robin Meade’s career. New York Daily News. https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/anxiety-attacks-put-hln-anchor-robin-meade-career-article-1.397097 Irwin, P., & Thompson, N. L. (1977). Acceptance of the rights of homosexuals: A social profile. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 107-21. Johansson, A., Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2022). Intolerance predicts climate skepticism. Energy Economics, 105, Article 105719. Jones, C. (2022, June 1). Best and worst states for LGBTQ folks? Divide worsens after 'Don't Say Gay,' report says. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/06/01/best-worst-us-states-lgbtq-gay-inclusiveness-pride-month-2022/7454218001/ Jones, E. E., & Gordon, E. M. (1972). The timing of self-disclosure and its effect on personal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 358–365. Jones, J. M. (2021, February 24). LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest U.S. estimate. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx Jones, J. M. (2022, February 17). LGBT identification in U.S. ticks up to 7.1%. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx Jones, J. M. (2023, June 16). Fewer in U.S. say same-sex relations morally acceptable. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx Jones, S. (2023, May 4). Yep it’s ratings. FTVLive. https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2023/5/3/yep-its-ratings Justin, N. (2024, June 27). KARE anchor Jason Hackett wanted to come out on air. Minnesota felt like the right place to do it. Star Tribune. https://www.startribune.com/kare-anchor-jason-hackett-has-no-regrets-about-coming-out-to-viewers-i-just-wanted-to-be-my-authentic-self/600376589/ Kaleem, J. (2019, February 7). Should journalists be transparent about their religion? University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Journalism Ethics. https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2019/02/07/should-journalists-be-transparent-about-their-religion/ Keith, C. (2006, September 15). Life as an openly gay journalist: CNN's Thomas Roberts. After 250 Elton. http://www.afterelton.com/people/2006/9/roberts.html Kennecke, A. (2018, September 2018). Emily’s hope: A personal story of loss in the opioid epidemic. KELO. https://www.keloland.com/news/emilys-hope-a-personal-story-of-loss-in-the-opioid-epidemic/ Kennedy, S. (2018, December 16). Memphis TV reporter found armed during domestic assault call. The Commercial Appeal. https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/crime/2018/12/16/memphis-fox-13-reporter-scott-madaus-arrested-domestic-assault-charges/2331434002/ KGO. (2018, May 23). ABC7's Spencer Christian opens up about gambling addiction on GMA. https://abc7news.com/spencer-christian-good-morning-america-gma-abc7-weather-anchor-reveals-gambling-addiction/3511416/ King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times: Exploring dual perspectives of ‘‘coming out’’ in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 33, 566–601. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83–96. Kloeffler, D. (2011, October 17). To boldly go… ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2011/10/to-boldly-go Krishnan, A. (2009). The effect of presentation styles of newscasters on parasocial interaction: A cross cultural study. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1. Krueger, E., & Fox, J. D. (1991). The effects of editorials on audience reaction to television newscasters. Journalism Quarterly, 68(3), 402–411. KSAT. (2023, January 27). KSAT Sports Director Greg Simmons resigns. https://www.ksat.com/news/2023/01/31/ksat-sports-director-greg-simmons-resigns/ Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 565–579. Kurdi, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2022). Implicit Person Memory: Domain-general and domain-specific Processes of Learning and change. In E. Balcetis & G. B. Moskowitz (Eds.), The handbook of impression formation: A social psychological approach (pp. 459-488). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003045687 251 Langer, E. J., & Imber, L. (1980). Role of mindlessness in the perception of deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 360-367. Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex Research, 16(3), 245–257. Leibowitz, E. (2014, December 22). Becoming Zoey Tur. Los Angeles Magazine. https://lamag.com/news/becoming-zoey-tur Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as para‐social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 23(1), 69-80. Lewis, S. C. (2019.) Lack of trust in the news media, institutional weakness, and relational journalism as a potential way forward. Journalism, 20(1), 44-47. Lissitsa, S., & Kushnirovich, N. (2020). Is negative the new positive? Secondary transfer effect of exposure to LGBT portrayals in TV entertainment programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(2), 115–130. Loftus, J. (2001). America's liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review, 66(5), 762-782. Lord, B. (2020, June 15). It was Valentines Day and I was on the morning news for a local tv station. The producer had labeled [Video attached] [Status update]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/LordByronII/posts/10158205179472332 Lowe, L. (2018, March 8). Meet the first American TV reporter to wear a hijab on the air. Today. https://www.today.com/style/tahera-rahman-first-air-tv-reporter-wear-hijab-t124701 Luisi, T., Adams, K. L., & Kilgore, L. (2021). Roughing the caster! Sexism and perceived female sports broadcasters’ credibility. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 29(4), 262-274. MacDonald, A. P., Huggins, J., Young, S., & Swanson, R. A. (1973). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Preservation of sex morality or the double standard? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 161. MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2014). The development of online cross-group relationships among university students: Benefits of earlier (vs. later) disclosure of stigmatized group membership. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, September, 1-22. Maddow, R. (2011, April 25). Anchors away. MSNBC. https://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/25/6528728-anchors-away Madon, S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and 252 strength. Sex Roles, 37, 663–685. Magrath, R. (2020) “Progress...slowly, but surely”: The sports media workplace, gay sports journalists, and LGBT media representation in sport. Journalism Studies, 21(2). 254-270. Malory, M. (2012, October 19). Is homosexuality a choice? Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/ Markham, D. H. (1965). The dimensions of source credibility of television newscasters. (Dissertation: The University of Oklahoma) Proquest. https://www.proquest.com/pagepdf/302196713 McCarthy, J. (2019, June 6). Gallup first polled on gay issues in '77. What has changed? Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/258065/gallup-first-polled-gay-issues-changed.aspx McCarthy, J. (2022, June 13). Is the world better for gay people than it was 10 years ago? Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393602/world-better-gay-people-years-ago.aspx McCarthy, J. (2023, June 5). U.S. same-sex marriage support holds at 71% high. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx McCormack, M. (2012). The declining significance of homophobia: How teenage boys are redefining masculinity and heterosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. McDonald, G. J. (1982). Individual differences in the coming out process for gay men: Implications for theoretical models. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(1):47-60. Meade, R., & Bacharach, E. (2018, October 10). HLN’s Robin Meade: ‘I Used To Have Panic Attacks Before Every Show’. Women’s Health Magazine. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a23679320/hln-robin-meade-panic-attacks/ Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Mierke, Katja, Aretz, W., Nowack, A., Wilmsen, R., & Heinemann, T. (2011) Impression formation in online-dating situations: Effects of media richness and physical attractiveness information. Journal of Business and Media Psychology (2)2, 49-56. Miller, J. R. (2021, April 29). Anchor Feven Kay arrested after being found passed out and naked in her car. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/04/29/news-anchor-arrested-after-being-found-naked-passed-out-in-car/ 253 Mize, T. D., & Manago, B. (2018). The stereotype content of sexual orientation. Social Currents, 5(5), 458–478. Mohr, J. J., Chopp, R. M., & Wong, S. J. (2013). Psychotherapists’ stereotypes of heterosexual, gay, and bisexual men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 25(1), 37-55. Montini, T. (2000). Compulsory closets and the social context of disclosure. Sociological Perspectives, S121–S132. Moore, J. (2012, October 18). Denver TV host Eden Lane opens up about her life and challenges. The Denver Post. https://www.denverpost.com/2012/10/18/denver-tv-host-eden-lane-opens-up-about-her-life-and-challenges/ Moore, L. A. (2019, February 5). With domestic violence charges dropped, ex-TV reporter Scott Madaus speaks out. The Commercial Appeal. https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2019/02/05/domestic-violence-charges-dropped-tv-reporter-scott-madaus-speaks-out-fox-13/2783083002/ Moore, P. (2023, March 28). Frank Somerville makes first TV appearance since DUI crash: Exclusive. KRON. https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/frank-somerville-makes-first-tv-appearance-since-dui-crash-exclusive/ Moskowitz, G. B., & Olcaysoy Okten, I. (2016). Spontaneous goal inference (SGI). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), 64–80. Moskowitz, G. B., Olcaysoy Okten, I., & Schneid, E. (2022). The updating of first impressions. In E. Balcetis & G. B. Moskowitz (Eds.), The handbook of impression formation: A social psychological approach (pp. 348-392). Routledge. Nash, B. (2022, June 10). Researching what viewers value most in TV news anchors. Barry Nash & Company. https://barrynashandcompany.com/research-what-viewers-value-in-tv-news-anchors-changes NBC10. (2019, September 27). NBC10 reporter and anchor Dray Clark charged in domestic assault cases. https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/dray-clark-charged-in-domestic-assault-cases/192279/ Netzley, S. B. (2010). Visibility that demystifies: gays, gender, and sex on television. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(8), 968-86. Newhagen, J., & Nass, C. (1989). Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. The Journalism Quarterly, 66, 277–284. Nishikawa, K. A., Towner, T. L., Clawson, R. A., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2009). Interviewing the interviewers: Journalistic norms and racial diversity in the newsroom. Howard Journal of 254 Communications, 20(3): 242-259. NLGJA. (n.d.). Stephen Gendel comes out. https://www.nlgja.org/blog/1994/01/timeline-steven-gendel-comes-out/ Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110. Olson, L. M. (2014). Potential juror credibility evaluations of gay and lesbian witnesses (Publication no. 1690) [Doctoral dissertations, University of North Dakota]. UND Dissertations and Theses. https://commons.und.edu/theses/1690 Osterman, L. L., & Hecmanczuk, T. A. (2020). Parasocial forgiveness: The roles of parasocial closeness and offense perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 800–820. Ostertag, B. (2006). People's movements, people's press: The journalism of social justice movements. Boston: Beacon Press. Parker, A. (2023, January 27). KSAT Sports Director Greg Simmons arrested for suspected DWI. KSAT. https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/01/27/ksat-sports-director-greg-simmons-arrested-for-suspected-dwi/ Patton, E. (2022, June 28). ‘Yes, I can be a gay man and report on LGBTQ rights fairly’. NBCU Academy. https://nbcuacademy.com/lgbtq-legislation-coverage/ Pellizzaro, K., & Liseblad, M. (2021). Reporting from my home: Location effect on the para-social phenomenon and the news broadcast industry. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 65(4), 595–614. Perez, C. (2010). Confessions of a gay anchorman. Lulu Enterprises. Perse, E. M. (1990). Media involvement and local news effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(1), 17–36. Peters, L. H., & Terborg, J. R. (1975). The effects of temporal placement of unfavorable information and of attitude similarity on personnel selection decisions. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(2), 279–293. Pettit, M. (2024). ANKRBOY. Self-published. Pew Research Center (2013, June 13). A survey of LGBT Americans, Chapter 4: marriage and parenting. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/chapter-4-marriage-and-parenting/ 255 Pew Research Center (2019, August 29). U.S. public continues to favor legal abortion, oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/ Pew Research Center (2020, June 23). Two-thirds of Americans think government should do more on climate. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ Pew Research Center (2021, October 28). In U.S., far more support than oppose separation of church and state. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/10/28/in-u-s-far-more-support-than-oppose-separation-of-church-and-state/ Pew Research Center (2022, June 28). Americans’ complex views on gender identity and transgender issues. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ Pew Research Center (2023, June 15). More than four-in-ten Republicans now say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/15/more-than-four-in-ten-republicans-now-say-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/ Pew Research Center (2023, June 8). More Americans disapprove than approve of colleges considering race, ethnicity in admissions decisions. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/ Pew Research Center (2024, June 6). Cultural issues and the 2024 election. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/cultural-issues-and-the-2024-election/ Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. G. (2017). The effect of the promiscuity stereotype on opposition to gay rights. PloS one, 12(7), e0178534. Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. University Press. Plohetski, T. (2019, August 8). The path to my fiance hurt like hell. Now, I feel hope for our future as a married gay couple. Austin American-Statesman. https://www.statesman.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/08/08/path-to-my-fiance-hurt-like-hell-now-i-feel-hope-for-our-future-as-married-gay-couple/4385574007/ Poindexter, P., Smith, L., & Heider, D. (2003). Race and ethnicity in local television news: Framing, story assignments, and source selection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 524-536. 256 Polakowski, B. (2009, May 4). Garrett Glaser. NLGJA. https://www.nlgja.org/blog/2009/05/garrett-glaser Ponse, B. (1976). Secrecy in the lesbian world. Urban Life, 5(3), 313-338. Pope, K. (2019, February 19). Getting over ourselves. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/getting-over-ourselves.php Pope, K., Coppins, M., Goldman, A, & Khan, A. (2020, February 6). Keeping the faith. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/religion-journalism-roundtable.php Powers, B. (1997). The impact of gay, lesbian, and bisexual workplace issues on productivity. In A. L. Ellis & E. D. B. Riggle [Eds.], Sexual identity on the job (pp. 79-90). Routledge. Pulliam, T. & Garcia, S. (2023, July 31). Lifeguard discovers body inside barrel at Malibu Lagoon State Beach. KABC. https://abc7.com/body-found-malibu-lagoon-barrel-drum-homicide-investigation/13578206/ Pulliam, T. (2023, June 11). LA's 'Pride in the Park' celebrates LGBTQ community and allies, ends festival with Mariah Carey. KABC. https://abc7.com/los-angeles-pride-in-the-park-lgbtq-community-parade/13367765/ Pulliam, T. [@ABC7Tim]. (2023, June 10). Los Angeles Pride featuring @theestallion �� ⚧ @lapride #PrideMonth #Pride2023 [Video attached] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/ABC7Tim/status/1667707444511006720 Pulliam, T. [@ABC7Tim]. (2023, June 2). �� #Pride #PrideMonth #ABCNews #ABCOTV [Image attached] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/ABC7Tim/status/1664682492681388048 Pulliam, T., & Rand, J. (2022, September 13). Evacuations ordered in Yucaipa area after heavy rains bring mud flows, flooding. KABC. https://abc7.com/evacuations-yucaipa-forest-falls-mud-flow/12225680/ Rascoe, A., & Sherburne, L. (2023, May 28). Companies pull back from pride campaigns after backlash, and threats toward employees. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/28/1178644956/companies-pull-back-from-pride-campaigns-after-backlash-and-threats-toward-emplo Redman, J. (n.d.). The history of the word “gay”. The gayly. https://www.gayly.com/history-word-“gay” Remedios, J. D., Chasteen, A. L., Rule, N. O., & Plaks, J. E. (2011). Impressions at the 257 intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay + Black = likable? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1312-1315. Reysen, S. (2005) Construction of a new scale: The Reysen likability scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(2), 201-208. Rich, A. 1980. Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5, 631–660. Richardson, R. J. (2022). Local TV Newsroom Diversity: Race and Gender of Newscasters and Their Managers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 66(5), 823–842. Roberts, C., & Dickson, S. H. (1984). Assessing quality in local TV news. The Journalism Quarterly, 61, 392–398. Robinson, B. (2020, November 4). ABC News anchor Dan Harris on how meditation changed his personal life and built a new business. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2020/11/04/abc-news-anchor-dan-harris-on-how-meditation-changed-his-personal-life-and-built-a-new-business/?sh=d8a1ca36c299 Rodriguez, N.S. (2019). Negotiation of sexual identity in gay on-air talent on West Texas radio and television media. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(7). 896-913. Rogers, K. (2024, May 26). How to meditate, with help from Dan Harris. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/26/health/meditation-tips-beginners-dan-harris-wellness/index.html Rosenthal, A. (2021, August 4). Houston news anchor Steven Romo comes out in moving engagement announcement. Houston Chronicle. https://www.chron.com/culture/tv/ article/Houston-Steven-Romo-news-anchor-engaged-weatherman-16363582.php Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Hoffmann, L., Sobieraj, S., & Eimler, S. C. (2013). An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. International Journal of Social Robotics (5), 17–34. Rosky, C. J. (2013). Fear of the queer child. Buffalo Law Review, 61(3), 607-697. Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155–180. Rule, N. O., & Alaei, R. (2016). “Gaydar”: The perception of sexual orientation from subtle cues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 444–448. Russ, T., Simonds, C., & Hunt, S. (2002). Coming out in the classroom…An occupational hazard?: The influence of sexual orientation on teacher credibility and perceived student learning. Communication Education, 51, 311–324. 258 Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 995–1008. Sanders, K. P., & Pritchett, M. (1971). Some influences of appearance on television newscaster appeal. Journal of Broadcasting, 15(3), 293-302. Sanderson, J., & Emmons, B. (2013). Extending and withholding forgiveness to Josh Hamilton: Exploring forgiveness within parasocial interaction. Communication & Sport, 2(1), 24-47. Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92–115. Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference? Will & Grace and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(4), 15–37. Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge University Press. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1967). Attitude as the individual’s own categories: The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change (pp. 105-139). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sherman, J. (2015, June 4). Why gaycism should replace homophobia. Slate. https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/06/homophobia-doesn-t-accurately-describe-anti-gay-prejudice-here-s-a-word-that-does.html Shewfelt, R. L. (2019, June 3). NBC anchor kicks off Pride Month by announcing on-air that she's engaged to a woman: 'It takes courage to be your true, authentic self'. Yahoo. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nbc-anchor-overwhelmed-by-the-love-and-support-after-announcing-her-engagement-to-another-woman-onair-000854317.html Shortall, J. (2019, March 7). Why many businesses are becoming more vocal in support of LGBTQ rights. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/03/why-many-businesses-are-becoming-more-vocal-in-support-of-lgbtq-rights Shosteck, H. (1973). Factors influencing appeal of TV news personalities. Journal of Broadcasting, 18, 63–71. Signorile, M. (2012, October 28). Meet the only openly transgender mainstream television broadcast journalist in the U.S. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eden-lane-transgender-broadcast-journalist_n_2034538 Sillick, B. (2024, June 26). NLGJA’s ongoing fight for LGBTQ+ journalists: Progress, challenges and a vision for the future. Editor & Publisher. 259 https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/nlgjas-ongoing-fight-for-lgbtqplus-journalists-progress-challenges-and-a-vision-for-the-future,250391 Simmons, J. L. (1965). Public stereotypes of deviants. Social Problems, 13, 223-232. Simon, L. (2005, November). Jane Pauley: The sanest person in TV. BP Magazine. https://www.bphope.com/jane-pauley-the-sanest-person-in-tv/ Sink, A., Mastro, D. & Dragojevic, M. (2018) Competent or warm? A stereotype content model approach to understanding perceptions of masculine and effeminate gay television characters. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, (95)3, 588-606. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142. Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., & Isham, J. T. (1993). Implicit versus explicit impression formation: The differing effects of overt labeling and covert priming on memory and impressions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(1), 17-41. Smith, L. (2008). Race, ethnicity, and student sources: Minority newsmakers in student produced versus professional TV news stories. Howard Journal of Communications, 19, 182–199. Soller, K. (2018, April 27). Six Times journalists on the paper’s history of covering AIDS and gay issues. The New York Times Style Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/t-magazine/times-journalists-aids-gay-history.html Spann, J. (2024). The Alabama Weather Blog. https://www.alabamawx.com/ Staats, G. R. (1978). Stereotype content and social distance: Changing views of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(1), 15–27. Steiner, A. (2014, October 24). KSTP-TV meteorologist Ken Barlow reflects on life with bipolar disorder. MinnPost. https://www.minnpost.com/mental-health-addiction/2014/10/kstp-tv-meteorologist-ken-barlow-reflects-life-bipolar-disorder/ Stern, R. (2024, May 2). Jason Hackett’s “Sunrise” in the Twin Cities. Lavender Magazine. https://lavendermagazine.com/featured-home-page/jason-hacketts-sunrise-in-the-twin-cities/ Stopera, M. (2023, December 13). A news anchor is going viral for coming out with only one extremely simple word. BuzzFeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/a-news-anchor-is-going-viral-for-coming-out-on-air-in-the Streva, V. (2019, October 31). All charges dismissed against former NBC10 anchor Dray Clark. Philly Voice. https://www.phillyvoice.com/charges-dropped-domestic-violence-former-260 nbc10-anchor-dray-clark-accuser/ Sullivan, A. (2012, July 7). Anderson Cooper: “The Fact Is, I’m Gay.” The Daily Beast. ”http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/07/02/anderson-cooper-the-fact-is-im-gay/ Swan, R. (2022, December 19). Former KTVU anchor Frank Somerville speaks about addiction struggles that he says spurred DUI wreck. San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/former-ktvu-anchor-frank-somerville-speaks-about-17664974.php Swarner, J. (2019, June 21). Former Valley news anchor shares his story of abuse, addiction. KTAR. https://ktar.com/story/2624107/former-valley-news-anchor-shares-his-story-of-abuse-addiction/ Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with liked, neutral, and disliked characters on a popular TV series. Mass Communication & Society, 13(3), 250–269. Tracey, L. (2022, June 13). Harvey Milk’s Gay Freedom Day speech: Annotated. JSTOR. https://daily.jstor.org/harvey-milks-gay-freedom-day-speech-annotated/ Tremblay, M. (2022). “Standing for” Representation: LGBQ Politicians as Symbolic Agents. In: LGBQ Legislators in Canadian Politics. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. TRUCKADS. (n.d.). Designated market list. https://www.truckads.com/designated-market-list.htm USTVDB. (2022, October 27). 2022-2023 Nielsen DMA ranking. https://ustvdb.com/seasons/2022-23/markets/ Ventriglio, A., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., Torales, J., De Berardis, D., & Bhugra, D. (2021). Homophobia and mental health: a scourge of modern era. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 30(52), 1-3. Vonk, R. (1994). Trait inferences, impression formation, and person memory: Strategies in processing inconsistent information about persons. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1). Watson, L. (2023, May 12). How gen Z is driving equity for LGBTQ+ in the workplace. HigherEdJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=3459 WCVB. (2022, June 7). WCVB reporter shares his recovery story, resources to help others struggling with addiction, alcoholism. https://www.wcvb.com/article/wcvb-reporter-ted-wayman-recovery-story-resources-for-addiction-alcoholism/40049505 261 Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961–977. Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., & Groner, R. (2008) How gender and age affect newscasters' credibility: An investigation in Switzerland. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(3), 466-484. Weil, A. (2020, April 24). Bravo's Andy Cohen says FDA rules blocked him from donating plasma after surviving COVID-19. WXIA. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/andy-cohen-wanted-to-donate-plasma-after-surviving-covid-19-fda-rules-wouldnt-allow-it/507-5690bd3a-89cb-4b52-a682-f846c6b12030 Weiner, R. (1990). Webster’s new world dictionary of media and communications. New York: Webster’s New World. Weissbach, T. A., & Zagon, G. (1975). The effect of deviant group membership upon impressions of personality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 95(2), 263-266. White, M. H. (2018, August 20). How big should the control group be in a randomized field experiment? https://www.markhw.com/blog/control-size Whitman, J. S., Cormier, S., & C. J. Boyd. (2000). Lesbian identity management at various stages of the coming out process: A qualitative study. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 5(1), 3-18. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Sherman, J. W., Franzese, H. L., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Capacity and comprehension: Spontaneous stereotyping under cognitive load. Social Cognition, 22, 292–309. Wigboldus, D. H., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). When stereotypes get in the way: Stereotypes obstruct stereotype-inconsistent trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 470–484. Wiggins, C. (2024, May 24). A local NBC anchor came out as gay on live TV. now, he shares how the moment has changed his life. The Advocate. https://www.advocate.com/news/jason-hackett-nbc-comes-out Williams, S. (1993, August 4). CNBC Newsman Tells Viewers: ‘I Am Gay'. Associated Press. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/141617584. Willis, J. & Todorov, A. (2006) First impressions. Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598. Winfeld, L. (2013). Straight talk about gays in the workplace: Creating an inclusive, productive 262 environment for everyone in your organization (3rd edition). Routledge. Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 237–252. Wojcieszak, M., & Azrout, R. (2016). I saw you in the news: Mediated and direct intergroup contact improve outgroup attitudes. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1032–1060. WQAD. (2024, February 14). WQAD’s David Bohlman opens up about his absence. https://www.wqad.com/video/entertainment/television/programs/good-morning-quad-cities/526-4c903a19-1e35-4bdc-bf8e-51c43dfbf9b4 Zivony, A., & Lobel, T. (2014). The invisible stereotypes of bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1165–1176. 263 Vita Robert J. Richardson is an ally of the LGBTQ+ community who worked as a newscaster for 12 years. He was primarily a field reporter and did not engage in crosstalk about his personal life, nor did he post any non-news content on social media. The only information available to viewers about his sexual orientation and relationship status was at the end of the station bio at his fifth and final TV station—once he was married. It stated: Robert married his wife three weeks after he started at CBS17. She’s also from Alabama, and they are excited to return to the southeast to be close to their families. His primary research interest focuses on minority visibility and representation in broadcast news. In addition to LGBTQ+ research, he has also conducted studies about race and gender. As a straight cisgender White male who fits the mold of the traditional “anchorman,” he wants to learn more about the experiences of his colleagues who may face challenges and judgments based on their appearance and identity, and hopes his work will lead to more inclusive newsrooms that better serve diverse audiences. Permanent email: RobertR@utexas.edu This dissertation was typed by the author. |
|---|