In a recent editorial, The New York Times opened up a contentious dialogue about Taylor Swift’s sexuality, marking a departure from mainstream media’s typical coverage.
The 5,000-word piece by opinion editor Anna Marks delved into the longstanding speculation surrounding Swift’s sexual orientation, particularly questioning whether the release of her 2019 album Lover was an attempt to come out.
“In 2019, she was set to release a new album, Lover, the first since she left Big Machine Records, her old Nashville-based label, which she has since said limited her creative freedom. The aesthetic of what would be known as the “Lover Era” emerged as rainbows, butterflies and pastel shades of blue, purple and pink, colors that subtly evoke the bisexual pride flag.” Marks says in her editorial.
While the article presented compelling evidence, such as the use of rainbows and bisexual pride flag colors in the promotion of Lover, it has drawn criticism for its invasive nature. Individuals described as “associates” of Taylor Swift expressed frustration with the piece to CNN, with one anonymous source stating, “Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics. This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans.”
The editorial has raised concerns about the boundaries of journalistic ethics, particularly when it comes to discussing a celebrity’s personal life. The source emphasized that some journalists seem willing to cross any line when writing about Swift, irrespective of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it might be.
REELated:
The person added, “There seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is — all under the protective veil of an ‘opinion piece’.”
Marks’ exploration centers around the promotional activities for Lover, highlighting the release of the ME! video on Lesbian Visibility Day and the inclusion of queer celebrities in the You Need to Calm Down video. Swift herself addressed the latter in a Vogue interview, explaining that it was her attempt at allyship.
The editorial acknowledges the potential for its interpretation to be “merely a mirage, born of earnest projection.” Marks suggests that Swift, in order to maintain her cultural influence, must conform to certain narratives that have dominated her career, notably falling in love with a man or seeking revenge.
Marks is aware that discussing a star’s queerness before a formal declaration may be seen as salacious and gossip-fueled. However, she argues that recognizing the possibility of queerness, while being mindful of the difference between possibility and certainty, plays a role in shaping cultural narratives.
The controversial piece has ignited discussions about the responsibility of the media in respecting the privacy of public figures, especially regarding personal aspects of their lives. As Taylor Swift continues to be a cultural icon, this editorial adds another layer to the ongoing discourse around the intersection of celebrity, identity, and public scrutiny.
Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram
