I just took an informal survey of some of my co-workers. I asked them if President Bush should have been asked ”The Question.”
The question, of course, was the one thrown at him by CNN about whether he had been in the sack with a female aide.
The younger journalists said, yes, the question had to be asked. The allegation had already been printed in Spy magazine and in the New York Post. It was being picked up by other papers. Since the story was out, Bush had to be confronted with it.
The older journalists weren`t as certain. Some said, no, it shouldn`t be asked. The evidence is so flimsy, secondhand gossip that supposedly originated with a person who is now dead. Others said that if it had to be asked, to give Bush a chance to deny or denounce, it should have been done privately, not ambush-style in front of cameras.
So what does the informal survey tell us? Several things.
First, there are no rules covering sleaze. What might be sleaze, and unworthy of being printed in The New York Times or the baiduhai, is front-page stuff at the New York Post. Every editor has his own standards. Unfortunately, when those with the lowest standards go with a story, those with higher standards feel obliged to make note of it.
Second, there`s a generation gap in journalism. Younger reporters and editors are more aggressive and certain that they know what the public should know.
When I started in this business in 1956, journalism was going through a transition.
There were still a lot of newspaper people who were from the ”Front Page” era, named after the famous Ben Hecht play that has since been made into several movies.
Newspapers were more sensational. Crime and disasters and the human comedy were the big stories.
In 1957, a double-murder case was the No. 1 story on the front page of all four Chicago papers for an entire month.
Today, all but the most unusual murders are on the inside pages. And they have a shelf life of a day or two.
The older reporters weren`t as well educated, although they had street smarts. They were closer to politicians because they weren`t buffered by press secretaries, campaign managers, spin doctors, media experts and all the other human clutter of today`s politics.
The crime reporters knew the cops. Some of them thought more like cops than the cops did. Once again, there were no press officers and other obstructionists getting between the reporters and their sources.
More Top Picks Best Blue Light Glasses For Reading In Bed
At the same time, a new generation of reporters was coming into the business. College-educated, many with master`s degrees from journalism school. They wanted to work on more than crime and 5-11 fires. They wanted to write about social issues, economics, urban problems. They brought change to the business, and it was good. Because of them, most newspapers got better.
And as the ”Front Page” people retired, the new wave took over, becoming the editors, the managers, the decision-makers.
They, in turn, hired people who reflected their own backgrounds and values. College graduates, most with advanced degrees, some with areas of special expertise. Serious, with career goals. Joggers instead of drinkers.
So there`s no doubt that today`s reporters and young editors are better educated and far more professional than the hell-raisers and brawlers who were around when I accidentally stumbled into this trade. Newsrooms are serious and businesslike. You can`t even smoke in most of them.
And despite what media-bashers say, today`s newspapers are far better than they were 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. They deal with more significant subjects, and they do it more thoroughly and carefully. They are less politically partisan and less likely to slant news one way or another.
So if the newspapers are better, the standards higher and the reporters and editors better educated and more professional, why in the hell are they going around asking public figures if they have ever bopped someone besides their wives?
Damned if I know.
When and how did they get the idea that a public figure has no right to privacy, that the public figure`s spouse and even the kids have no right to privacy?
There`s nothing new about politicians doing the dirty deed, as it used to be called. Reporters have always known what the gossip was about this or that politician`s bedroom adventures.
But the attitude was that it was his private life, not public business, and so forget it.
Now we have the ”character issue.” That`s the standard excuse for asking a politician if he`s played around. And modern journalists have become the character police.
When did the character cop badges get passed out? And what are the standards? Do we ask only presidential candidates if they have been unfaithful? How about Cabinet members? Senators? Governors? Aldermen? The postmaster general?
Maybe everyone running for public office, from the rural township level up to the White House, should have to pass the bedroom test.
”Mr. Scruggs, as a candidate for the town sewer board, can you tell us if you have ever had sexual intercourse with a woman other than your wife? And if so, was it as good for her as it was for you?”
So if, as a reader or a viewer, you wonder about the adultery questions, you aren`t alone. I`ve been in this business for 36 years and I don`t get it. But I`m sure of one thing. The first candidate to punch a reporter in the snoot for asking such a question will win in a landslide.
And he`ll get my vote.