Journalethix

Governor Mark Sanford (SC-R) is a public figure.  He violated a public trust.  He broke his marriage vows.  His story needs to be reported.  South Carolina constituents and the members of the socially conservative Republican party need to know about this hypocrisy. That is not up for debate.  However, the release of personal emails between Sandford and his Argentinean lover is beyond abhorrent.  Here’s why the letters should not be published.

1. The content of the emails doesn’t make the affair and better or any worse. All the public needs to know is that an affair took place.  Releasing those letters doesn’t change any of the facts.  An affair is an affair.  He admitted it.  What kind of acts they engaged in or how he felt about her body is beside the point.  (Did we really need to know that Clinton engaged specifically in oral sex?  Either way he broke his vows and exploited his position with an intern.)  The act of the affair is public, and the public has a need to know that their governor breaks promises.  They don’t need to know the level of feeling he had toward this woman.  That is between Sanford, his lover and his wife (who does need to know all details as she decides the fate of their marriage, which is not up to the public).  Need to know: the affair occurred.  The rest follows under prurient voyeurism.  Want to know strictly.
2. The Emails were stolen. Someone hacked into these accounts.  Documents and evidence not given due process will not hold up in a court of law-they shouldn’t be admissible to the court of public opinion unless due process is followed.  Sanford’s emails will come under scrutiny as this case unfolds and state officials look into whether Sanford used state funds or resources to facilitate his affair, something he has denied.  When the emails are appropriately obtained, then they can be released, but with discretion.  The sundry details of his affections for his lover is harmful to his wife and family and not of any value to the public other than to satisfy their voyeuristic needs.

Journalism gets a bad wrap for being smarmy and slimy for reasons such as this.  I hope eventually we will get to a place where we don’t just print anything that comes to us unless there is a compelling news reason to do so and the ethics surrounding their receipt were noble.  And I’m not thinking of Sanford here.  I don’t think we owe him anything.  I’m thinking of his family, and any precedents stemming from just printing emails just because we can.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009