Is there a line that reporters and media types should not step across when questioning third parties about political candidates?
Absolutely, and that line was crossed Tuesday when Evan Strange, a representative of a college newspaper, asked Chelsea Clinton if the Monica Lewinsky scandal had tarnished Hillary’s ability to function as a strong president.
The incident occurred in Indianapolis near the end of Chelsea’s appearance before a Butler University crowd of a couple of hundred students and faculty. Her answer was short, sweet, and to the point.
“Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business.”
When interviewed later, Strange said his friends “always bring up that scandal. It’s not something I asked to cause trouble but to show those people what makes Hillary so strong.”
Some media experts have already leaped to Strange’s defense. Most of their explanations turn on the same basic premise. Chelsea’s a big girl now. If she can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
At bottom, however, the media isn’t defending Strange but the hallowed institution of the media’s right to ask stupid questions. Stupid questions stoke controversies, and controversies make fine reading and listening. A little controversial slant here and there brings increased revenues from the sales of ads and air time.
The first slant I noticed about this story was the terminology employed in the headlines and lead-offs. The scandal was referred to over and over as the “Monica Lewinsky Scandal.”
The matter of Bill Clinton and his cigar and other aspects of his aberrational personality in reality constitute the “Bill Clinton Scandal,” and it should be referred to as such.
Moreover, when the Bill Clinton Scandal occurred, Chelsea was only a child. She played no part in his erratic behaviors or in her mother’s decision to remain married to Bill.
In fact, Hillary wasn’t involved in planning Bill’s trysts, either, but based on the student’s question and the furor surrounding it, one could almost believe Bill was nothing more than a gentleman from Arkansas with a wild Chicago wife.
Maybe she should have divorced Bill at the outset, but she didn’t. That’s her business. Regarding the confluence of private and public lives, we continue to hear over and over, “Sure, he’s a rotten, no good (governor) (mayor) but as long as he performs his duties, he’s okay by me.” Is there a double standard for women? Are women’s private lives not private?
Over the past few years, the media has become ever more erratic and strident in demanding highly personal information, not only from political candidates but also from private citizens who find themselves in media cross hairs.
Do we really need to see a callous reporter stick a mic in some poor grieving mother’s face and ask, “What were your emotions when you learned that your son had been blown to bits by a roadside bomb?” That particular question isn’t stretching it too far, believe me.
At heart, this is a story about the lost art of common sense and the discernment to sift the important from the trivial. The media seem unable or unwilling to face the issue of their own culpability in extending the shelf life of salacious stories far beyond reason.
At the very least, the media ought to nail the hides of aberrant politicians to the barn door rather than concentrating on third parties.