PressEthic

The gubernatorial race in New Jersey is dirty, but somehow the press coverage is even dirtier. In an article that appears in the New York Times on November 5th with the headline "Rivals Try to Talk Policy, but Sex Remains Topic A," the Times lowers the bar of political reporting by passing on unsubstantiated rumors circulated by "reporters" without identifying whether these reporters are in fact fellow Times-men, or even the author of the article.

The article sets out to highlight the lowlights of the election, in which two bedraggled candidates vie to replace a governor whose term was rife with corruption. Corzine, the Democrat, suffers the special indignity of hearing his ex-wife endorse his opponent in Republican commercials. Not to be outdone, Forrester, the Republican, endures allegations regarding extramarital affairs that are hurled by reporters without any evidence backing them up.

But it is not only the politicians who sour this scene. In the article, Damien Cave writes:

But the effort to stay above some of the campaign's uglier accusations was derailed by reporters. Several of them dashed between both candidates' events to ask each of them for responses to allegations that have recently surfaced involving their personal lives. Mr. Corzine has refused to comment on the claim of his ex-wife, made several days ago, that he had an extramarital affair with Carla Katz, the president of a union that represents thousands of state workers. He has confirmed that he was later romantically involved with her and that he had given, and later forgiven, a $470,000 mortgage to her. But Mr. Corzine did deny a new allegation raised by reporters yesterday regarding another woman. For his part, Mr. Forrester repeatedly said that he had not had an extramarital affair with a woman mentioned by reporters. The reporters provided no evidence to substantiate the new allegations.

Seeing as it is common practice in the newspaper industry for a reporter to refer to himself in the third person occupational (e.g., "a reporter asked the President …" when translated into normal English typically means "I asked the President") Cave's phrasing is a bit ambiguous. Is he among the reporters referred to in the above excerpt? If so, then shouldn't he identify himself as such, especially if the story is about how reporters' actions are "derailing" efforts to "stay above some of the campaign's uglier accusations"? But perhaps admitting that the Times is sniffing around for hints of a sex scandal is beneath the Gray Lady.

More importantly, if Cave isn't part of the fore mentioned ramble of reporters, then why include denials to allegations that have no evidence to substantiate them? Cave seems to attempt to include media criticism into a metro section election story, and ends up failing to produce a satisfying story.

Instead, Cave ventures into the murky territory of slanted reporting. Sex scandals are not the sorts of things that reporters need to give equally to both sides. Corzine's situation has a clear accuser (his ex-wife) and backstory (the question is really timing – was it an extramarital affair or just an affair?). In comparison, Forrester is dealing with reporters without evidence or an accuser to back up their questions. But by noting questions of fidelity to both sides (no matter how dissimilar), Cave makes the two situations seem at least superficially congruent.

By critiquing reporters "derailing" efforts to stay above ugly accusations – but at the same time including the context, exact questions, and denials of these juicy bits out of a pulp novel – Cave is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Yes, he gets to write that both candidates are answering questions regarding extramarital affairs, which always makes for good copy. But doing so makes the tone of moral critique hard for the reader to bear.