The problem is politicians aren’t movie stars. Pop sensations or reality TV instant celebs There job is not entertain but to keep the government of the
It is my opinion that the media needs to find a happy medium between "lap dog" and "watch dog," which has become more like a "hound dog" searching for juicy meat. I generalize when I say this but the media tends to chop on any thing that seems less than perfect in a politicians life, and to be honest, I know these are public figures but I really don't believe it is my business if President Clinton has an affair or ten. Not that I approve of people having affairs, however that issue should be between him and Hillary not him and the world. When the media first reported on the Lewinsky scandal people, including some in the media were calling for his impeachment. After he lied about the affair, the thing is if an accountant lied to his co workers about having an affair he wouldn't be fired from his job would he? Using this example, I can say that I believe the media has crossed the line when it comes to sharing information about politician's personal lives, as what President Clinton did was not illegal. Elliot Spitzer on the other hand is another example, as what he did, use an "escort" service, qualifies as using a prostitute and is therefore illegal in the
A politician should not have the right to cry media fowl play if they are participating in fowl (illegal) play themselves. This being said, there is a thing called the right to privacy, something that many American citizens claim when things such as security cameras are installed in public places or extra security is added in air ports. The media needs to focus more on how a politician is doing their job during working hours, and less on a senator who has an extra cocktail (but is of course not driving under the influence, that would be illegal!).
1998 CNN Lewinsky scandal coverage poll :http://articles.cnn.com/1998-01-29/politics/poll_1_bill-clinton-union-speech-clintons-ability?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Well put, well stated. I'm with you on all things privacy related. Politicians personal lives are none of our business. Most of the time. Except for when they break the law, of course. And their health. Any ailments, physical, mental, or otherwise that could possibly affect their performance should be public record. Any medications they're taking as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to know where to draw a line isn't it? And hey, while we're at it, if you need a drug test to work at rite aid then why not on capital hill. The machinery of the state should qualify as heavy machinery not to be operated while under the influence. Breathalyzers in the chambers of congress? Why not? Of course one could argue that it is enhancing their performance, not dampening it.
What about when their personal behavior betrays their public face? Was it in the public's interest to know what gay-baiting, moralist / senator Larry Craig was doing in that bathroom? Well, he was breaking the law at least.
Actually, technically President Clinton lied under oath when asked about the affair, so he did break the law. But I'd agree he shouldn't have been called to testify about the affair in the first place. A tremendous waste of time and of public funds. I would, however, like to see President Clinton on trial for the bombing of the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory, for war crimes.
It's a shame that Spitzer's proclivity for prostitutes brought down one of the few rising politicians honestly interested in financial reform.
Good blog, as you can see, it got me thinking.
Great blog Ariana. I really appreciate that you mentioned Eliot Spitzer story. Political figures risk so much for their mistakes in private lives. Sheriff of Wall Street was caught with his pants down. Media framed him as his entire life was a lie, but in my opinion it was not.I wish the new Governor of NY would be so passionate about his job and do at least 10% of what Spitzer achieved.I totally agree with you, that politicians in America should be treated by media more like humans. I think it cost 40 million $ to investigate Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and about 15million $ to investigate 9/11.The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) investigation budget was roughly 8 million $. That says a lot about national priorities and individual obsessions. Your observations are very accurate.
ReplyDeleteI think you are making a good original argument here, that the line as to whether the media should report on a story that appears to be personal should be drawn at whether or not the action is illegal. You might want to emphasize that from the very start, and have the post largely be your support for that position. I think it would be great if you can include some more specific examples of stories on politician's personal lives that should or should not be covered here (and the Lewinsky scandal, as noted in the above comments, is not a perfect example for you as Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in his testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against him). That way you can really present some specific examples to help back up your claims. You will also definitely want to read over this post for typos and word usage errors - for instance, "criticizing" in your 1st sentence, I think you mean attack dog not hound dog, fowl vs. foul, etc. Additionally, your link at the end of the post doesn't work (it can't be cut and pasted as is) and you should provide more links, throughout the piece, to more related information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that the media needs to know when to draw the line. Its important that they keep an eye open to things that matter like corruption and crimes, but I do feel that sometimes they intrude too much, and risk eliminating my sense of liberty.
ReplyDelete