Tuesday, March 25, 2008

To Dish Or Not To Dish

SO, THE GOVERNOR OF New York gets busted by the feds for soliciting hookers. How much more info does the public need?

Then, David Patterson, the guy who replaces the disgraced Eliot Spitzer, announces that he has had multiple affairs while married. One of his paramours is on his gubernatorial staff.

How much information should the media provide? The editor of the Albany Times Union wrote this:

"If you're the editor of the newspaper here, you're torn: You could choose to be embarrassed that you haven't reported all this stuff that has been going on beneath our noses, or you could realize that you would be more embarrassed if you got dragged by the tabloids into reporting a bunch of salacious details that aren't really any of our business."

But salaciousness sells! That's why the AP is opening that celebrity wing of their wire service, right?

Don't people want the dirt, and therefore, isn't it the media's responsibility to provide those dirty details?

Or should the media take the higher ground, and only report criminal behavior?

6 comments:

Kurt said...

Personally, I don't care who politicians and celebrities are blowing and what they do with their personal lives. However, the media is simply giving us the information they are led to believe that we want. Is it doing more harm than good? Maybe; just look at the train wreck that is Britney Spears. But, there is no denying that these stories mean something to a lot of people.

Scott said...

I think the only real story here is that spitzer was using State money for his prostitute romps. I'm from NY and really, that's the only part of this whole situation that really bugged me. Honestly, I couldnt care if Patterson cheats on his wife every day. She could be a bitch, we don't know that. Not saying that its a morally just thing, I'm just saying I really don't care.

Shauna said...

Spitzer claimed to be a man of morals before his election as governer. If he is hypocritical in his actions after being elected,it is the publics right to know. The dirty details are what people want to know when it comes to somebody who is governing their state. Its the responsibility of the politician to have some class and not solicite hookers. If he does, there is the potential for it to get found out and blown up for the world to see.

Ashlee Kane said...

Well...my personal philosophy is that the dirt and rumors should be reported in the tabloids and not the New York Times and Washington Post type newspapers. We buy the big time papers for the big time news...so if none of these rumors have any merit to them, dont publish them in the newspaper. Save that for the tabloids.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I really don't care about a person's marrital affairs. If it's alright with his wife, it's alright with me. She's the one that has to live with his slimmy ass.

Jackie said...

Although these people are important to the public, their political, not public lives are what we're really interested in. If it effects the people that are being governed, then it becomes an issue. Private sexual matters should not printed for the country to read. Maybe they should just keep it in their pants and solve the entire controversy ;-)