NBC recently apologized for the network’s allegedly homophobic coverage of two-time Australian gold-medalist diver Matthew Mitcham. Mitcham was the Olympics’ only openly gay athlete, which he revealed in a May interview. Bob and friends have been accused of ignoring the facet, intentionally or through journalistic incompetence, and failing to afford Mitcham’s partner the same air-time as other Olympic spouses.

Should NBC have apologized for this? and to whom?

Mitcham didn’t want to be portrayed as a gay athlete. “I just want to be known as the Australian diver who did really well at the Olympics,” Mitcham told the Herald Sun. “It’s everybody else who thinks it’s special when homosexuality and elite sport go together.€

Moreover, his “coming out” to the media was not premeditated. “I hadn’t planned to do it at all,” Mitcham told the Advocate. “It was just a question.€

If NBC owes an apology, it certainly isn’t to Mitcham who wanted to be treated as any other Australian athlete. The only people who seem to be offended are interest groups. Do they have a right to be?

A similar issue arises for minorities in many sports. Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan aren’t “athletes.€ They are “black athletes.€ Because of a perceived minority status, Woods and Jordan acquire a political responsibility, whether they want it or not.

Homosexuality and race are hot-button issues. Discussing Mitcham’s sexual orientation may have been educational. But, at what point does a third-party public interest trump the individual’s right to determination of his or her own identity? Shouldn’t Matthew Mitcham determine whether he is an advocate?

Matthew Mitcham is gay. To him, it’s not a big deal. So, why should it be to us?