2008 Woodie Awards
Keeping coverage presentable
Dirty laundry should not be aired to public if it doesn't affect their job
By: Maria Spicketts
Issue date: 2/25/08 Section: Voices
The New York Times ran a report Thursday insinuating Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had an affair with a lobbyist.
As a reporter, I think the personal lives of candidates should not be news, unless it in some way affects, their job performance.
One of my journalistic inspirations, Helen Thomas, wrote of this in her book, "Watchdogs of Democracy." She said in her early years as a reporter, personal lives of presidents were off-limits.
In recent years, we've heard of President Clinton's numerous affairs, and President Bush's daughters' underage drinking.
Clinton's affair had nothing to do with his presidency, other than where the encounters took place. Bush's daughters' issues were absolutely not news, because they are not the public figures; their father is. They should not be a front-page story.
Everyone knows now of the affairs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, of course, John F. Kennedy. But in that era, the 1960s and before, it was considered bad journalism to report on it.
Had Clinton's affair caused a problem with his presidency, yes, it would have been news. Until reports surfaced, Clinton was a president who was overall, beyond satisfactory to the general public. The press created an issue with the situation.
But the McCain problem is different.
McCain is running a campaign of change, much like his Democratic competition, Sen. Barack Obama. He's said numerous times he would not, as a president, sign a bill with earmarks. He's made a very big deal of removing corruption from Washington.
If he did have an affair with a lobbyist, it will be a black mark on his record. It will change his message, because someone who cheats on his wife loses a reasonable amount of moral ground.
McCain's no-earmarks, no pork schpeel is canceled out with this alleged act of indiscretion. Lobbyists contribute to a great number of pork and earmark spending. It's not entirely implausible that his girlfriend may request a tiny favor, which could result in an earmark, and he delivers, eliminating the basis of one of his platforms.
As a reporter, I think the personal lives of candidates should not be news, unless it in some way affects, their job performance.
One of my journalistic inspirations, Helen Thomas, wrote of this in her book, "Watchdogs of Democracy." She said in her early years as a reporter, personal lives of presidents were off-limits.
In recent years, we've heard of President Clinton's numerous affairs, and President Bush's daughters' underage drinking.
Clinton's affair had nothing to do with his presidency, other than where the encounters took place. Bush's daughters' issues were absolutely not news, because they are not the public figures; their father is. They should not be a front-page story.
Everyone knows now of the affairs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, of course, John F. Kennedy. But in that era, the 1960s and before, it was considered bad journalism to report on it.
Had Clinton's affair caused a problem with his presidency, yes, it would have been news. Until reports surfaced, Clinton was a president who was overall, beyond satisfactory to the general public. The press created an issue with the situation.
But the McCain problem is different.
McCain is running a campaign of change, much like his Democratic competition, Sen. Barack Obama. He's said numerous times he would not, as a president, sign a bill with earmarks. He's made a very big deal of removing corruption from Washington.
If he did have an affair with a lobbyist, it will be a black mark on his record. It will change his message, because someone who cheats on his wife loses a reasonable amount of moral ground.
McCain's no-earmarks, no pork schpeel is canceled out with this alleged act of indiscretion. Lobbyists contribute to a great number of pork and earmark spending. It's not entirely implausible that his girlfriend may request a tiny favor, which could result in an earmark, and he delivers, eliminating the basis of one of his platforms.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Nick Smith
posted 2/25/08 @ 8:04 PM EST
Uh, did you not even read that story throughly?
Granted, they mention the allegations of an affair or whatnot a few times, but the main topic of that story is being completely overlooked by virtually everyone, and it's really quite pathetic. (Continued…)
Post a Comment