What to Cover vs. How It's Covered

After reviewing the West and Hatfill stories, I am left with the opinion that it was the quality of the reporting, or lack thereof, that led to the horrific outcomes that resulted. In both cases there was legitimate news value. One may question the right of a politician to stay in the closet while promoting discriminatory policies. The West and Thurmond examples have this type of angle in common. It has relevance to the public debate over such policy issues if one side is demonstrably at odds with his stated position. The problem with the coverage of West by the Spokesman Review begins with the fact that their purpose was not to bring context to any debate over gay rights, but to destroy the reputation of the mayor. The coverage was intense and it was loaded with prejudices and assumptions. The coverage in the Hatfill case had the same characteristics. Although there was no initial objective of destroying Hatfill's reputation, he became a convenient target. Laziness and the demands of a sweatshop newsroom environment took care of the rest.

The hypotheticals deal, superficially at least, with the sexuality of political figures. The scenarios involve some deeper issues that are worth exploring. When electing public officials, there are certain things that the public has a legitimate right to know. There are questions of character that provide some insight on how a person will govern, how they make decisions, how they treat people. Many successful politicians have had affairs. In Gary Hart's case, it was not the affair, but his arrogant defiance and sense of entitlement that were at issue. I would argue that the case exposed Hart's similarities in attitude with Richard Nixon. Attitude matters. The John Edwards case is a bit more tricky. By the time the story broke, he was no longer a candidate for office. It is difficult to determine how the public may have been served by the exposure of his affair. There was no policy angle. From a personal standpoint he seems lonely and vulnerable. The same argument could be made for Schwartzenegger. There is little about this story that would add to what the voters already know about their governor. Once the story breaks, however, it is incumbent on the media to provide context and analysis in order for the public to make sense of the information they are being given. Finally, I would respect the privacy of a former president and vice-president in such conduct of a homosexual relationship. Sometimes it is better to let a story ride off into the sunset.