Private Lives of Public Officials

The private lives of American public officials should be kept private, unless the topic is particularly relevant to the well being of the United States. While a journalistic guideline would prove complicated and difficult to enforce, it should be the responsibility of reporters to maintain a level of decency and respect.

            In class we discussed specific examples, including John Fitzgerald Kennedy bringing women to the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. for romantic encounters. This event would be relevant to report as Kennedy was more than 50 feet away from the officer who was responsible for carrying the codes to authorize the use of atomic bombs. This function was especially important in that time period because of Soviet threat. Americans outside of the president’s immediate circle should have been informed of Kennedy’s choices. While I am a fan of Kennedy, perhaps a backlash of negative reactions would have motivated the president to stay within range of his officer.

            Former Congressman Anthony Weiner received a plethora of notoriety after he accidentally leaked a private photo via his Twitter account. The event was guaranteed to gain attention because the social network is a public forum, but I do not believe it was necessary for media outlets to bring any additional attention to the event. As an American citizen I did not feel the information benefitted me in any significant way or changed my political feelings toward the congressman.

            Certain politicians and public figures “stir the pot,” and perpetuate gossip about themselves by their reactions to reporters’ questions. In class we discussed Colorado Senator Gary Hart who was a candidate in the presidential election of 1984. Hart, a married man, had a reputation for pursuing other women, but this was not problematic for his campaign until he teased a reporter. When being asked about his extramarital affairs, Hart replied, “Catch me if you can.” Shortly after, Hart was seen on a yacht called “Monkey Business,” with another woman.  These two factors only encouraged reporters to write about Hart’s less than faithful behavior toward his wife. I don’t believe that Hart’s affairs were representative of his abilities to perform as a president, but his behavior seemed to prompt controversial publicity.

            Critics argue that a public official’s infidelity can be representative of their character. I believe, however, that someone could be a perfectly good and well-qualified candidate as long as they focus on America’s best interest, regardless of marital issues. It seems in this day and age that irrelevant gossip has captivated the public’s interest more so than what is important. During an election, media coverage should advance candidates’ goals, beliefs and past experiences.

            Bill Clinton’s presidency is an example of this situation. Clinton was a successful president who also struggled with fidelity. Clinton lied during impeachment proceedings. A president’s dishonesty under oath is definitely worthy of publication, but his affairs should not have been the determining factor of his political character. Americans who used his affairs as the primary argument against the Clinton administration should have weighed his indiscretions against the economic health of the country during his presidency.

In the Harvard Nieman Reports, Florence George Graves wrote:
But even though the media sometimes report gratuitous stories involving sex—something I regard as unethical—we should not forget why some aspects of what for decades the press has defined as the “private lives” of public officials, when reported responsibly, are not only of legitimate public interest but also important to pursue and publish.

Graves went on to argue that not every story of a public official involving sex should be written off as too private. I agree with this one amendment to a “zone of privacy.” If a political candidate were to rape or sexually assault someone, such a crime would be pertinent information to publish for American citizens. This extreme scenario is one of the few instances of public officials’ private endeavors I would not hesitate to write about as a journalist.

Julius Duscha of The Chicago Tribune noted a similar situation in 1985:
The private/public issue has been in the news because of revelations about the marital life of John M. Fedders, who was director of the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Fedders resigned after admitting he had beaten his wife seven times during the course of an 18-year marriage and “highly” regretted his actions. The admission came in the midst of a divorce proceeding in which his wife charged that he had frequently abused her. I don`t have much trouble with such a reprehensible private situation being made public in the case of a government official, particularly one who is directly involved in enforcing rules and regulations on the rest of us.

I agree with Duscha that public officials should be expected to follow the same rules and laws as private Americans. A man physically harming his wife is an actual representation of character, in my eyes.
            Judy Nadler of Santa Clara University made another reasonable example of private matters being publicly relevant. Nadler wrote: 

So, for example, the president of the United States submits to a yearly physical, which is made public, because his or her health is of such key importance to the nation. Similarly, illnesses that affect job performance of local officials may be legitimate subjects of inquiry. Behaviors that might impede performance, like substance abuse, are matters of public interest. Financial problems, especially in a person with budgetary responsibilities, may be germane.

I agree with Nadler’s examples, but don’t personally find all health related matters of public officials to be necessary to disclose to the public. According to PBS, Grover Cleveland underwent cancer surgery in 1893 and American citizens didn’t find out about the operation until many years later. Cleveland’s abilities as president were no different before or after his cancer diagnosis. It would have been unfair to publicize his health struggles and paint an image of an unfit politician. Moreover, a polio-ridden Franklin D. Roosevelt asked the press not to photograph him in a wheelchair or struggling to walk. The press respected Roosevelt’s wishes and allowed him to perform as a president without newspapers escalating unnecessary public concern.
            Overall, it is a complicated and fine line to walk as a reporter writing about the private lives of public officials. There are so many loopholes and exceptions to every seemingly obvious rule. It is up to each individual journalist to choose how to cover a presidency or other election. As a journalist, I would constantly ask myself if the story I was about to write would be beneficial to the American public or if the story was just being written to stir controversy. I understand the financial motivation of newspapers to cater to their audience’s interests; however, Americans are currently in a meddlesome mindset. Perhaps if newspapers and media outlets chose to resist the call for gossip, Americans would have no choice but to refocus on the truly relevant news.