Politics, News & Issues >
News Industry
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedThe media and the personal lives of politicians: Open or closed door?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Open | 59% | 81 votes | Total: 137 votes | |
| Closed | 41% | 56 votes |
Open
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesUgly and embarrassing as it becomes at times, there is simply no way to prevent the news media from delving into the personal lives of politicians. In large part this is because the politician who draws such focus has either been caught red-handed or has come forward to admit his transgressions. Keeping the door open on such coverage is critical to holding politicians accountable. It is also the price we pay in the struggle to preserve a free press and a vigorous democracy.
It hasn't always been like it is today. When the wheelchair-bound Franklin Roosevelt was president, the press readily accepted the unwritten rule that no photograph of FDR would be published unless it was from the waist up. In the case of John F. Kennedy, his extramarital dalliances were hardly a secret, yet the media was virtually mum about the matter at the time. Fast forward a generation and the public discussion about Bill Clinton's oval office escapades reached an unparalleled, if not disgusting extreme.
While the modern media has proved its penchant to play the "gotcha" game with politicians, entertainers and virtually anyone else with name recognition, the key issues boil down to perspective, responsibility and fundamental fairness. Certainly, the media's flagrant exploitation of some stories cannot be condoned. The insatiable appetite for the recent Paris Hilton drama, for example, was blown completely out of proportion to its news value, was blatantly irresponsible and was callously unfair.
When it comes to coverage of a politician's affairs, both private and public, however, there are several factors that significantly change the dynamic.
First, the politician becomes a "public figure" as soon as he or she becomes a candidate for office at any level of government. By voluntarily thrusting himself into the public eye, the courts have ruled the politician opens himself up to a higher degree of scrutiny.
Second, by soliciting for and accepting campaign funds, the politician subjects himself to an array of campaign financing laws. Since contributions have to be reported, this opens the door for an intrepid reporter to "follow the money" and study the sources of the donations, which can turn up some curious, and sometimes scurrilous, associations.
Third, as makers of the laws, elected officials are held to a higher standard when it comes to upholding the law. In the case of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the issue that brought his sexual orientation into the public eye was not that he is, or is not, gay. The fact that he was charged by an undercover law enforcement officer for lewd behavior in a Minneapolis airport men's room put the matter into the court system, which automatically makes it a matter of public record. The officer also reported that the senator flashed his senate business card as an apparent attempt to use the sway of his office to avoid the arrest. Sen. Craig eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of keeping the matter quiet. When his case was reported in the media, and when he then attempted to change his plea, the issue became a matter of hypocrisy, not homosexuality. This is a clear illustration of how closely a politician's public life is intertwined with his personal life.
Fourth, once a politician is elected to office, every vote he casts is open to scrutiny. Politicians are in office to carry out the people's business. They conduct that business with the people's money. The people depend on the news media, in its watchdog role, to make sure their tax dollars are being spent wisely and not squandered.
To argue that this idealistic system is foolproof would be foolhardy, just as it would be to suggest that today's oft-times intrusive news media return to the days of turning a blind eye to FDR's wheelchair or JFK's mistresses. It is also worth noting that while elected officials loudly bemoan the press when they find themselves under the blazing glare of a full-fledged media investigation, some are very adept at manipulating, or spinning, the pliant press for their own benefit.
Closing the door, or handcuffing the news media with some sort of prohibition against reporting on a politician's personal life flies in the face of a "free and unfettered" press. To do so would not only be impractical, it would also be irresponsible.
Learn more about this author, G.K. Dickey.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Closed
As a society, we're so not in touch with politics that the only time we know of a politician way about, is when his been caught having fun. Our politician's private life is more important to some of us than the constitution that governs our lives. For some reason, we seem to pay more attention to the media when the issue that is being discussed involves a politician being caught having an affair than when it involves politics.
We are imperfect beings having a loving experience; the result of our relationship will depends on how we balance our imperfection with our values. What we do in our private lives are our business. Yes, I understand why some people maybe concern with politicians private lives. To some degree, they do have a responsibility to comport themselves in a manner that shows leadership. After all, kids are forever using them as examples, their social image to some extent characterize the society they represent.
However, it's equally unjustified for the media to project on the TV screen a politician's private life. If Malia fell while climbing up the presidential helicopter, I don't wish to know about this. If the 7 years old Sasha had a confrontation in school with her peer, the media shouldn't inform us about it. Those are private issues that should be dealt privately. If we the American people are the first to know about a private mater that involves the president daughter, they would be something morally wrong with this picture.
Therefore, from this outlook we can conclude that it's not the politician private life that our media is mostly concern with, but instead the issues surrounding the politician life which shares a direct relationship with how he governs the country. From this analysis, derived this principle, "the value we place onto a politician private life has direct relationship towards the whay he governs his office". I understand why a politician must behave in a manner that suit public opinion. However, any politician who must resign for reasons that does not affect the way in which he governs his office proved as a society, we focus our attention on issues that doesn't contribute to progress.
Now, what has come in mind is perhaps an idea that is not clear to most but when we say "personal lives of politicians" to what degree of personal are we most concern with. If we're goring to debate this issue, we must be clear as to where we stand, especially if we must limit broadcasting our politicians private lives.
Not too long ago, former president Bush senior's wife, Barbara Bush underwent an open heart surgery. An extremely risky procedure, and considering her age, it was unlikely to have predicted a good outcome. The former president shared some tears over this, something that should not have been broadcast. This moment was a family matter and should have remained so, but somehow, the media felt as though it was necessary to broadcast it. It is true that Barbara Bush is an important figure in American history but that doesn't permit us to broadcast Bush senior's personal moment. As a society, we would have been just as satisfied had we known she was OK without the media broadcasting the personal tears from a past presidential leader.
It is obvious to us all that the media will broadcast what ever issue they feel that would increase their rating. Well then, since the media has absolute power to broadcast whatever they wishes, why are we debating this issue? The question should then be do the media have a moral responsibility not to broadcast issues that shares some level of sensitivity. That is to say, should the vice president mother, Catherine Eugenia who is presently being admitted to the University of Pennsylvania hospital be
broadcasted to us or is it a family matter that should remain private. In another way, Is it morally right for the media to broadcast to us her symptoms and the reason that led her to be hospitalized? That is the extent in which I argued the personal lives of politicians should be a close door.
Some issues are better left untold than said because truly, they serve no purpose in politic. Politic is the process by which people form decisions but those decisions derived from information gathered. However, not every peace of information relates to politics. Sometime, the information that the media use to broadcast are those peaces of information that shares no direct relationship to politic. For that reason, I'll say again, to what degree of personal lives of politicians are we most concern with as a society.
The fight to preserve free press is as important as our Civil Right, but the right for the media to invade our private lives is an attack on our Civil Right. So you see .we have to be careful how we approach this issue because by looking at it in three dimensional, we may miss out on some key factors. I believed that they maybe more dimensions than just three, therefore, we must open our minds to uncertainties, which maybe part of the fourth dimension.
Learn more about this author, James Dubreze.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News Industry
- Can democracy flourish if media ownership is limited?
- Do mainstream media outlets favor bad news over good news?
- Can media exposes on government abuse lead to reform?
- Should the media be giving Paris Hilton so much attention?
- Should the government control talk radio to make it more "balanced"?
