The opinion section of any decent newspaper (or online version) is going to have articles there simply to stir the pot of ideas. Get people talking. I think this is a good thing. It can be annoying when the headlines are cheap hooks to get reactions, but papers need people to read them and people just don't read for no reason.
Moving on...
I often glance at the opinion section to see what people are writing on different issues. Particularly the ones that I didn't think were issues, or hadn't thought of in a while. Today I stumbled on a gem that had the tagline:
Not all affairs produce corruption, but the media should dig into the private acts that should be publicly disqualifying.
Should the media dig into the private acts of public figures (elected and appointed offices most importantly) to sniff out any possibly disqualifying ones? I get what the author is saying. He thinks that National Enquirer and other tabloid snooping and accusing, however often it is false and stupid, can reveal elements of character in potential or current public servants that are important. His example:
By rights, the Edwards story should have been entered in the “public service” category as well. If the supermarket tabloid’s reporters hadn’t gone digging where other journalists declined to even tread, we might never have learned how close the Democratic Party came to nominating a truly disgraceful character for the presidency.
Do we care that Edwards was sleeping around? So the guy is a sleaze. Does that mean he doesn't have a good record as a statesman? Does that mean he couldn't do a good job? Sure, it may not look so good but luckily for us no public office job is staying faithful. The article continues:
If Americans aren’t reading about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, they’ll just read about Tiger Woods or the Jolie-Pitts instead.Better the former than the latter. Watching Woods unburden himself last Friday made me think: This really shouldn’t be any of my business. I’ve never had the same thought watching John Edwards confess his sins. Athletes and actors don’t work for us directly; they’re entrusted with great wealth and fame, but not great power. But the private peccadilloes of politicians tend to interfere with, and corrupt, their commission of their public duties.
I would think that NONE of this was my business. Actor or businessman or politician or athlete or astronaut. If a running politician has a secret habit of cutting up kittens in his garage, however, I might think that would be important. Or if he killed a guy. But both of these are examples of behaviors that represent a definite danger to the responsibility entrusted to a politician. Plus, they are actual crimes.
I'm not condoning this behavior by saying cheating on your spouse is OK in private. Nor am I saying it doesn't show something of the person's character. I am saying that it almost never matters to the JOB, and such invasive investigative journalism should not be encouraged. The author made a good point that mirrors my own:
Not all affairs produce corruption, and we don’t have to know every sin that our politicians commit. Bill Clinton wasn’t on the ballot in 2008, and maybe the public didn’t need a substantial investigation into his post-presidential sex life.
I'll end with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment