Journalistic Jihad: The Presidential Soap Opera

Every day, millions of ordinary Americans utilize the internet as an opportunity to willingly expose what may have been (at least at one time), the fine line between their private and public lives. Given our celebrity-mad popular culture and the ability to exchange information at lightning speeds, it is no surprise that Americans have historically been focused on the private lives of public figures. While Entertainment Tonight is busy analyzing Michele Obama's bargain-basement wardrobe, writers at People rush to Alaska to get their chance at an exclusive interview with Sarah Palin's pregnant 17-year-old daughter. But what are the implications on the process at this, a critical juncture in the history of American politics? As arguably the most important presidential race in a generation, its early stages promised serious, issue-based debate. In what one can easily regard as a frightening change in course, the race has rapidly devolved into a saga of one daytime TV moment after another-right before our eyes.

Oprah's endorsement of Barack Obama. The removal of John McCain's malignant melanoma. The management of Hillary Clinton's sizable campaign debt. Reverend Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments about Obama's religious life on Chicago's South Side. John Edwards cheating on his wife while she battled cancer. The messy break-up of McCain's first marriage. And ofcourse, the fresh meat for aspiring-cyberpundits like myself, the constantly unfolding Sarah Palin saga. While you might be able to argue the relevance of these late-breaking private turned public developments, others might refer to them as journalistic jihad - the elevation of mushy narrative nonsense over all else. The comprehensive consideration is this: How closely should we examine the moral values and philosophies of candidates? Is there anything off-limits?

It certainly is our right and civic responsibility as Americans to strive to understand a candidate’s moral values and philosophies. Character is important to me, and although some past discretions may be forgiven (after all, who is perfect?), a candidate's stance and overall philosophy concerning moral purity and integrity will more heavily impact the decision I make at the voting booth. Since character is telling, I thought it were my business to know what sexual escapades were transpiring in the oval office when Bill Clinton was President, although I recall in those dark days, there were some who said his private activities were none of my concern.

There is an odd tension in American society between the near reverence for personal privacy and the expectation that the lives of public officials be open for almost limitless scrutiny. While this is not a new phenomena, this tension is increasing, with proposals at the federal and state levels calling for increased protection of personal information. In the last dozen or so years, these rules have been shattered, as tabloid values and a ratings-above-all-else mentality have taken over much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. We clamor more than ever for the sordid details of politicians’ personal lives. In light of this, and of other considerations, it seems prudent to raise the issue of how much privacy elected officials should expect to maintain. How open should be the lives of those who aspire to public office? Is their business our business? How much of it, and why? Does the personal life of the President have any bearing on his performance in the White House? In all areas? In some? Which ones?