by Stewart Richmond

Created on: May 10, 2008

Where the private life of a politician impacts on his (or hers) public obligation journalists would be failing in their duty if they did not report the subject.

One of the best examples of this occurred in the 1960's when the British Secretary of State for War John Profumo had an affair with Christine Keeler. She just happened to also be the mistress of a Russian spy.

This happened at the height of the cold war. We'll probably never know if Profumo was completely stupid or set up or part of a wider conspiracy.

When the affair became public in 1963, Profumo made a mistake which is being repeated by politicians around the world who don't or won't seem to learn by other's mistakes.

He lied to the British Parliament, denying the affair, and ended up quitting in disgrace.

Keeler's now in her mid sixties, Profumo died two years ago aged 91.

The British political landscape is littered with the carcasses of politicians who presented a squeaky clean public image as the front to sordid sexual excess.

In itself of little interest to non-politicians who present a squeaky clean image as a front for their sexual or other excess.

The problems is the politician can bring influence on a massive range of issues and billion dollar deals and has access to sensitive information. By leading a double life they leave themselves open to manipulation.

It is here the journalist has a duty to present the information to people so the people may make a decision on its efficacy and take whatever action they deem appropriate.

Stories of this nature are more about questioning the judgment of elected decision-makers than their private lives.

The New York Times addressed the issue in its Leader of September 10 1987 commenting on an extra-marital affair by Presidential Candidate Gary Hart.

In part it said:
"But the reason Gary Hart's monkey business was alarming is not that he was so willing to see other women; it's that he was so ready to run reckless risks."

Defenders of politicians often throw questions back at journalists about the journalist's sexual habits, drug use, political affiliations and so on. It is a fallacious argument journalists running reckless risks will never have the same potential impact of a President running reckless risks.

If politicians told the truth about their indiscretions, presented themselves as the flawed human beings we all are then any interest in their private lives would wane.

It is only when the secrecy of a private life impacts on the credibility and ability of a politician that the journalist has a duty to report.

The challenge is to decide when.

Learn more about this author, Stewart Richmond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.