Everyday Ethics

By Kelly McBride
Ethics Group Leader

There are all kinds of reasons and rationalizations journalists use to justify delving into the sex life of a politician or other public figure. I've been on the phone with dozens of news organizations over the last couple of years working through these reasons.

RELATED

"Here's to Hypocrisy," by Roy Peter Clark Additional resources for and articles about ethical decision-making in the newsroom To receive "Everyday Ethics" by e-mail, sign up here. Newsletters are delivered as new items are added.

Last fall when a gay activist and radio show host claimed that Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was secretly gay, newsrooms around the country agonized over how and what to cover. Since Roll Call's revelation Monday evening that Craig was arrested in a sting operation in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis airport, I have been fielding calls from reporters asking if and when journalists are justified in covering the sexual orientation of a politician.

Craig's guilty plea and news coverage provide two clear reasons for coverage. Circumstances in other cases are hazier.

Here are some of the most common reasons editors and news directors point to for outing someone, along with my own take:

• Hypocrisy: It is fair game if a certain politician has consistently voted on public policy issues that appear to undermine the rights or the political agenda of gay and lesbian citizens and if there is evidence that he is gay himself. I actually support a higher threshold. Merely voting a certain way on issues doesn't quite cut it. The only time the hypocrisy argument really works is when an individual has railed against gays and lesbians as a campaign platform. We don't call women who vote against public policy that would be beneficial to other women hypocrites.
  
  
• Honesty: If a guy says he's not gay and it turns out that he is, he's a liar and voters deserve to know. Here again, I believe a higher threshold is in order. Has he deceived a spouse? Has he actively created a false impression?
  
  
• Infidelity: We don't care if he's gay. We care if he is having affairs and breaking his marriage vows. Then focus on the infidelity, not the sexual orientation. We've cared about philandering ever since the days of Gary Hart.
  
  
• Criminal behavior:This is the clearest justification. If a politician is engaged in or charged with behavior that is deemed to be against the law, then we usually care. But go one step further and explain why such behavior is criminal, especially when it involves tapping ones foot in a men's room.
  
  
• The impact the rumors/story have on the voters and politics: We don't care whether he's gay. We report on the effect the story has on the political scene. This is a cop-out, a great way to back into a salacious story without taking responsibility for the information at the heart of the story.

News editors, executive producers and political hacks, take your pick. If you're going to cover the Senator Larry Craig story, find a journalistic purpose for the space and time and energy it consumes.