Gay TV round-up: 30 Rock and Anderson Cooper

So there were few items of gay interest on TV last night, and we thought we'd chime in on them here. First, 30 Rock featured Will Arnett (Blades of Glory) as a predatory network exec out for Jack's job -- not to mention a predatory homosexual out for Kenneth the page's tenderloins. The second was Anderson Cooper's investigation into Christians and sex, which of course touched on their views on homosexuality.

30 Rock
Missed Opportunities 101. Not particularly funny, and a bit dated in its reliance on gay-panic humor. The whole "man in a sexy bathrobe" gag was done to much funnier effect back on Larry Sanders (with David Duchovny), and Arnett's character had little to do other than chickenhawk Kenneth and look actively sleazy. It was amusing that Jack (Alec Baldwin) was doubly intimidated once he learned that his rival was gay ("he's even more powerful than I thought!"), but it was all downhill from there. You know, a few years back this might have been fresh and funny stuff -- but given how how well every other sitcom has done lately at integrating storylines with genuine humor and originality, this didn't cut it.

Anderson Cooper 360
This one's much more interesting. First, there's the basic discussion (the segments on Christians and homosexuality ran a good 30 minutes), which covered everything from ex-gay ministries to Christian congregations that welcome gay members to the American Psychiatric Association's views on homosexuality (in a nutshell: it ain't broke, so don't try to fix it). While not an "attack piece" by any means, the report engendered a good deal of sympathy for gays who have been maligned by so-called "reparative therapy" groups and exposing the faulty rhetoric and lack of scientific foundation upon which most of these groups are built.

My favorite quote was from Joseph Nicolosi of the National Association for Reducing the Human Spirit to an Academic Abstract (or some such ridiculousness), who dropped the following wisdom:

"A guy with a homosexual problem does not trust men ... when he begins to trust men, his homosexuality disappears"

Actually, Joseph, this homosexual only has a "problem" when it comes to hate-pushers like you -- you're pretty much the only men that I don't trust. And it goes without saying that I wish you'd disappear.

When the reporter asks Nicolosi to expand on his words, Nicolosi freaks out and storms off, insisting that the correspondent is twisting his words. Trust me -- I'm the first person to come down on someone for baiting an interview subject, but this reporter was using direct quotes from Nicolosi's presentation and was not being confrontational. Methinks this Nicolosi guy has issues (aside from hating entire communities for something that has absolutely no bearing on him, that is).

But aside from the content -- which is definitely worth watching, if you missed it -- the most interesting thing about the discussion was that it was of course led by Cooper, who just this week was essentially outed on the cover of a national magazine. How long can Cooper continue to report on this divisive issue from a position of neutrality before the conservatives start calling him on the carpet for having what could be perceived as being a vested interest in the topic?

I still believe that when and how and why an individual chooses to go public with his or her sexuality is a personal choice. But as a news reporter leading a discussion on gay issues and faith while his own sexuality is under intense public scrutiny, Cooper is vulnerable to an attack on his professional integrity as a fair and balanced reporter of the news -- whether or not his integrity is indeed compromised (I would argue that any coverage of this topic would look pretty much the same just because of the basic facts, but then again I'd probably be attacked by conservatives for the same reasons that Coop could be).

What do you folks think? Is Coop entitled to his privacy, or is he risking a negative hit on his image (and that of the gay community, by extended association) by covering this issue from a position that could be perceived as being less than neutral?