#3-How a presidential candidate’s personal life changed political journalism

 

 

I was watching tv with my husband last week when a story came on that interested me. The story was on Thursday, October 2, 2014 on PBS News hour. The story is about Politics and Journalism. It states that in 1987 a presidential candidate’s extramarital dalliance was made public. This was the first time that journalists had reported about a political figure’s personal life in that way. The interview was with Matt Bai, the author of the book titled “All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid.”

The question is asked if politics changed or journalism changed. Bai says he thinks that both of them changes. He says it was not like a light switch came on, it was more like everything had been stirring in the culture in the mid-1980’s and the decision was made to treat a presidential candidate differently than they had been treated before.

The next question was asked if Bai believed the change was for the better or the worse. Bai says he believes things changed for the worst, adding that not everything that came before that was great. He says that there was a certain “coziness and Clubbiness” prior to that. Young journalists started questioning that.

Bai says he thinks that after that story, the ethos of political journalism shifted from covering ideas and world views and agendas to exposing the lies. There was a new focus on scandals. It reduced people to narrowly defined moments in a person’s life. It was usually their worst moment.

Bai says that he remembered that from that campaign on character was the central part of the narrative of who a candidate was and how voters made their decisions. He asks, “in what context do you define a person’s character, because it encompasses a lot of things. Do they duck votes? Do they lie to their constituents? Is there corruption? All of these things are all a part of public character and private character as well.” He says that the shift began to disqualify someone based on one instance even if it has nothing to do with their position. When the candidate in 1987 was caught on a weekend cruise with a model he was asked whether he thought adultery was something presidential candidates should engage in.

What motivated Bai to write the book is the fact that because Hart, the 1987 presidential candidate, was the first to be caught he is still trying to undo the stigmatism years later. It has been hard for him to overcome the guilt and the unfairness because he sees politicians like Bill Clinton move past scandal and succeed. Hart is not willing to do the things other politicians will do to rehabilitate his image. Bai says that is the “gripping, compelling, human story that really transcends politics.”

Bai is asked how come he thinks other politicians who are caught in scandals cam overcome them. Why are they a success and Hart is not? Bai says that some people believe politicians have just learned to work through all of it and the public is desensitized. He thinks that we have actually changed the definition of political leadership and the definition of fitness. He thinks some people were driven away because they did not want to be under the microscope and we reward those who will do anything, subject their family to anything, tell lies to evade traps and find their way into office.

The final question for Bai is whether or not the reporters who told the story about Hart had any regrets for doing so. Bai says that they all seem to feel satisfied with what they have done. He says he understands because any one of us may have done the same thing. He just feels bad because he thinks it is misremembered. He says it is the job of the journalists who were there and those who came after to stand up and say that they have the record wrong and they need to think about the ramifications of what they do as an industry. The person giving the interview says that he thinks Bai’s book is an interesting read and should be required for a journalism class.

The reason this story interested me so much is because we had been talking about how we need to hear both sides of an issue and then do some critical thinking before we let our biases and our prejudices make a decision for us. We tend to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst in people if we are not careful. We need to think about the ramifications of our quick judgments and decisions. I also find this interesting because it is true that Journalist need to consider the ramifications of every story they present as facts and news.

This story was cogent for me. I think Matt Bai was honest about the facts that happened when he believes journalism changed for the worse. He said it was not perfect before, but when Hart's scandal was exposed, journalism changed. History will show that it is cogent to say that character became the central focus of a political campaign after that. Even though an affair does not really affect how a president will do his job, it is something that has become a focus now. The story is cogent for me because it has historical facts to back it up.