By mid-afternoon Monday, the headline on news sites around the Web told
the story like this: "Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring." As journalists began reporting what was described as transcripts of federal wiretaps, the story was quickly becoming all about "Love Client Number Nine."
That was the number news organizations said had been assigned to New
York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to protect his anonymity when he procured
the services of prostitutes. The reports asserted that, after a criminal investigation, Spitzer met with
his advisers Sunday night and Monday. During his one-minute news conference
Monday afternoon, he refused to take questions, but said: "I will report back to you in short order." He apologized to his family and to the public concerning
behavior which he described as immoral and "private."
That last word captures, no doubt, a strategy for preserving his public
life. He argued that in the end, governing was not about the moral
condition of the governor but about ideals, ideas and policies in the
public interest. He will invite the argument -- the one that journalists keep
having over and over again -- of where public interest and private
morality collide. Can the president, governor, mayor or
dogcatcher keep a lover? A mistress? A favorite prostitute? (Think JFK, RFK, MLK, Bill Clinton, former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, add your favorite here
------------.)
Most newsrooms will not assign reporters to report this story directly. But it will show up on the front pages, homepages and broadcast reports of news organizations around the world. Here are some key questions journalists can ask themselves as they
figure out how to handle this story, if only from afar, and the inevitable cycle
of local stories raising similar issues:
1. What is the journalistic purpose of running such a story? Be specific.
2. How will the public benefit?
3. If private behavior is involved, how could such behavior affect public life?
4. Has a crime been committed?
5. What do we know about how law enforcement has handled the case? Any indications of favoritism, entrapment or other mis-steps?
6. How long am I willing to wait for details to emerge before I publish?
7. Do I have any special obligations when the story involves lurid accusations of sexual misbehavior?
8. If no crime is committed and sex is consensual among adults, what circumstances would justify publication or broadcast?
9. What if the misbehavior had occurred three years ago? Thirty years ago? Is there such a thing as a journalistic statute
of limitations?
10. Is prostitution a victimless crime? What is the moral
difference between a governor using an adult business with discretion
and his hooking up at an out-of-town bar?
11. What influence should the public statements and policies of a
politician have on the decision to publish public/private behavior? (Say
you learn that a political candidate had an abortion. Does it
matter whether that candidate is pro-choice or pro-life in your
decision to publish?)
12. What safeguards have I established to resist the urge to
publish or broadcast the more lurid details of sexual behavior, even
when those details become public record? (As in the Starr Report.)
Anticipating these kinds of questions, I once constructed a teaching tool
called the Wheel of Ethics. Although my hypothetical case study differs from what is emerging in the Spitzer case, there
are enough similarities for it to be relevant. As you will see, the
Wheel of Ethics describes the most common justifications for certain
news judgments in these kinds of cases. In a country like ours,
stuck in a culture of pornographied Puritanism, journalists will face
these issues as long as journalism survives -- for another
week or two, in other words!
My case study follows:
The year is 2008 and an important Congressional race is shaping up in your district. Three months before the election, incumbent Republican Sam Straight has a comfortable lead. He is married (for the second time) and has two children, ages 11 and 9.
His first wife, Sally Straight, has a blog and writes, on occasion, about politics and her ex-husband. Here is her post for August 7, 2008: "One question I get all the time is why Sam and I broke up 12 years ago. He says it's because I didn't want to have kids, which is true. But I've got my take too. There came a time in my marriage when I began to suspect that my husband was gay and cavorted with gay prostitutes."
You are the editor of the Calusa News and your political editor points out to you that this rumor is spreading across the blogosphere. Clearly, you and your staff face an ethical dilemma. So what will you do? And why will you do it? And what have others done in such cases? And what values can you bring to the table? And what's the difference between a good and bad reason for your actions?
Confused? Under-prepared? Paralyzed by indecision? No problem. Just spin the Wheel of Ethics.
1.
Truth teller: You are a truth seeker and a truth teller. You believe in providing citizens with all possibly relevant information in the interest of self-government. So you decide to write a story about what the wife has posted, and you assign a reporter to collect as much information as possible on Sam Straight's sexual orientation -- at least up to the election, not only to test its accuracy, but also its relevance.
2.
Harm avoider: You cannot prove the wife's assertion, and even if you could, you see no relevance of Straight's sexual orientation to his public life, although the accusations of prostitution trouble you. Repeating information, or even linking to the Web site, could cause irreparable harm: to the candidate, his family, the electorate. So, for the time being, you treat this as rumor, and a non-story.
3.
Middle walker: As a longtime admirer of Aristotle, you believe in the Golden Mean. You will not ignore the story, nor will you play it big as if it were true and relevant. You have alternatives. So you write in a political notes column that Sally Straight writes a blog that contains gossip about her husband. You repeat this item on your Web site with a link to the homepage of Sally's blog.
4.
Do-not-disturber: You believe that even politicians in high public office require a "zone of privacy," and that it's one job of the journalist not to invade it. "Mr. Straight may not be straight," you tell the staff, "but that is his business and not the public's. We believe there is no necessary relationship between sexual preference and public behavior."
5.
Info spreader: You graduated from Faber College and believe that "Knowledge Is Good," and that, when in doubt, you should publish. Some citizens will vote for Straight because he's gay, some against, and for many it will not matter. So spread the news far and wide. Who are we to say what information is or is not of relevance to the voting public?
6.
Weather vane: From the evidence you gather, you conclude there's a good chance Sam Straight is gay. You feel no need to protect him from public stigma associated with homosexuality. In fact, the tide has turned toward greater acceptance of gay people and gay culture. By burying this news, we would re-enforce being gay as a social and political sin.
7.
Watchdog: It's not Straight's sexual orientation that matters, you argue, but the potential abuse of power. So you send some reporters to look into this, on guard for things like putting a sexual partner (gay or straight) on the payroll, or any coercive behavior toward younger male clerks, campaign volunteers and interns.
8.
Hypocrite hunter: Straight is Republican and an evangelical Christian. So you check out his stands on public matters that may seem in conflict with his sexual orientation. Has he spoken in public or written or voted on gay marriage or civil unions? You tell reporters to search for crude disconnects between public practice and private behavior.
9.
Difference splitter: You struggle with the different standards that have emerged for print and online publications. The standards for print seem more surefooted, while the standards for online seem more a work in progress. So you split the difference. You put none of the rumors about Straight in the newspaper, but you let it all out on your Web site, including a link to Sally’s blog. You write a column about the case, including a discussion of how blogs have changed our political culture.
10.
High horse rider: You decide not to print, but you don't want to give the public the impression that you are clueless. So you write an in-depth Sunday piece on the issues raised by the spread of these rumors across the blogosphere. You use this occasion to describe your standards and values to the readers, including your decision not to publish.
11.
Straight shooter: You are sensitive to the criticism, coming especially from the religious right, that the mainstream media are secular and humanist in their values. To demonstrate your neutrality, your non-partisanship, you report on Straight's sexual orientation, but not sensationally. You then do an even-handed Sunday piece on the religious right and the politics of homosexuality.
12.
Compartmentalizer: You accept that American culture is formed around an attraction to/ abhorrence of Puritan morality. So you stand on the platform that sexual behavior -- if conducted privately and consensually -- has no place in the discussion of a candidate's qualifications.
13.
Unveiler: You compile a list of all the stakeholders in this case: the candidate, the family, first wife, the party, the electorate, the news organization. Then, using a model of decision making called the Veil of Ignorance, you decide who the most vulnerable stakeholder is. In the absence of public malpractice, you decide the children of the candidate are most vulnerable. So you decide to play down -- way down -- the accusations.
14.
First Amendment rapper: You are close to a First Amendment absolutist. You wrap yourself in it to defend publication of even sensational and offensive material. This isn't yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is reporting on a guy in the public light who may have skeletons in his closet. The public should know.
[
What questions are you facing as you decide how to publish or broadcast wire service accounts of the Spitzer story?]
