Thinking out loud - the invisible gay olympic medalist.

If you are wondering about the recent furore surrounding Olympic diver Matthew Mitcham, here is the summary:

Matthew Mitcham was an up-and-coming Olympic hopeful when he dropped out of the sport two years before the Beijing Games due to anxiety and depression. One year before the actual Olympics, the young diver resumed training after much persuasion from his coach. He made the national team, which was not expected to fare well against China's famous powerhouse diving team.

True to expectations, the athlete performed poorly in his first event, not even making it to the semifinals. On his final attempt in his final event, however, he raised shockwaves that rippled across the sports community in an upset win that not only denied China the gold medal, but prevented China from taking a gold medal sweep in all eight of that sports category.

Matthew Mitcham, young, talented and goodlooking, is also the only out gay male athlete at the event, having come out as gay less than six months earlier.

His victory is easily the highest profile win ever by a gay man in an Olympic event, having posted the highest score ever given to a single dive during Olympic competitions.

Both his mother and his partner were in the stands to witness his triumph, their trip having been financed by a grant from Johnson & Johnson, a trip they would never have been able to afford otherwise.

After receiving his gold medal, he climbs into the stands to kiss his partner. One would have expected such a compelling story of victory and human interest to be told. Not according to broadcast giant, NBC.

Matthew's award ceremony and story did not make the NBC telecast, but was shown on their website.

When asked about why NBC had not mentioned that Mitcham was gay or that his partner was in the stands, NBC spokesperson, Greg Hughes said, “In virtually every case, we don't discuss an athlete's sexual orientation.”

It was, however, pointed out that in fact the network does exactly that by telling viewers about Olympic athletes’ various spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, and even in one case a heterosexual “love triangle” Hughes responded, “Not in every case. Not every athlete has a personal discussion. I could show you 500 athletes we didn’t show. We don’t show everyone. We don’t show every ceremony.”

But surely, taking into account Mticham’s stunning come-from-behind victory, the historical significance of his achievement as a gay man, and his own personal history, it seems unlikely the vast majority of those other athletes truly have as compelling a story as Mitcham. The human interest element in this story is indeniable, nor is Mitcham's performance in the event. Said Hughes, “How do you know that? How do you know that someone on the rowing team doesn’t have as compelling a story?”

Pressed that it was hard to believe that there truly any other athletes with stories as compelling as Matthew’s, especially ones who single-handedly prevented the Chinese from sweeping all of the gold medals in an entire sport, Hughes would only say, “It’s not possible to cover the entire personal story of every athlete regarding their performance. … It’s just not possible to single out coverage."

In Singapore such aversion towards covering or telecasting any gay-related material is nothing new. Season 4 of Desperate Housewives, for example, was not shown on local TV despite high ratings of past seasons of the hugely popular television series. It is interesting to note that Season 4 of Desperate Housewives features a gay couple moving in to Wisteria Lane.

The authorities have already made their point very clear - local media must not promote an 'alternative' lifestyle. Previously, Singapore's Channel 5 was fined a hefty $15,000 for airing an episode of a home decor series which contained scenes of a gay couple with their baby. The show also featured "the presenter's congratulations and acknowledgement of them as a family unit in a way which normalises their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup."

While we understand that local media companies have regulations and guidelines imposed by the authorities, we are still hopeful that one day Singapore can look past such peripherals and that eventually the media can judge relevant news and entertainment for what they are - news and entertainment - and not let it be coloured by regulatory concerns. We can only wait to find out.