NBC Fires Matt Lauer

We've ventured into politicians now. Let's cabin that discussion. We started with Tiger Woods. Why is it newsworthy that Tiger Woods was committing adultery? If it showed up in a divorce filing, maybe. But someone here who had profiled Woods said that if he knew about Woods' extramarital affairs (pre-divorce), he would have written about them. Isn't that just gossip? He's not running for an office here. He hits a ball.

 

Wouldn't anything outside of his scores Thursday to Sunday count as gossip then?

The point of a profile is to get a look at who the athlete is beyond the course/field/court/whatever. And if in the process of doing the profile, the writer discovers that the athlete regularly cheats on his wife, wouldn't that be a detail that speaks to the kind of person the athlete is? In the same way, if the writer discovered he was a caring and loving husband who massaged his wife's feet every night, it speaks to the kind of guy he is.

 

I know. I distinguished between a biography, for example, and breaking news. I'm not sure where the celebrity profile fits on that continuum. The adultery thing without more, though - like Clinton having state troopers round up fresh meat for him - seems like gossip and moralizing.

 

The way journalists actually treat these stories is quite different than how posters here are saying they should be treated.

Again: Pro athletes talk openly about infidelity in front of reporters. At least they did 10-15 years ago.

 

Yeah, I think that's an important distinction. Like you've mentioned, I'd be shocked if I saw a baseball beat writer include the star shortstop's trips to the strip club in his weekly notebook. But in a longer profile, that stuff feels like fair game.

The people getting morally outraged over it, especially in regards to athletes, I agree is silly. But with politicians, especially presidents of the fucking country, it is a story because everything that person does is a story. That is as much a part of the job as living in the White House. I'm not sure if it is because they are walking symbols of our country or we unrealistically expect more from them, but when a politician cheats it is a story.

Should we have just brushed off Bill's Oval Office fun with Monica? Are you trying to make YF's head explode?

 

This is the liberal argument that it was "about a blow job." But it really wasn't about a blow job. Eventually it was about obstruction of justice. At first, it was about suborning perjury from Monica. (Starr was trying to show a pattern of Clinton having improper affairs with government employees.)

THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Excerpts From Statements by White House and President on Accusations

Q. The news of this day is that Kenneth Starr, independent counsel, is investigating allegations that you suborned perjury by encouraging a 24-year-old woman, former White House intern, to lie under oath in a civil deposition about her having had an affair with you. Mr. President, is that true?

A. That is not true. That is not true. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true.

 

Saying you don't think something is newsworthy is not the same as condoning it.
If the president plays poker with friends for money, probably not newsworthy.
If the president bets on dog fights, newsworthy.

Also, as you say, I'm probably arguing for a world that does not exist and I'm acknowledging there is a difference between the practical and the ideal for 'news.'
If there is an audience to consume the information, it is news in a practical sense even if it is not news in an ideal sense.

In a similar vein, I dislike the fact that youth sports, early recruiting, AAU, etc. get covered at the current level. I think it is exploitative, bad for the youth involved and has exacerbated the corrupt culture around much of amateur and youth sports.
However, there is a market for that information; there is an audience and therefore it is 'news' in a practical sense.

Journalism and journalists have legal, constitutional protections that should require a set of professional and ethical protocols and standards.
There is an ideal of journalism, even though there really has been no period in which that ideal has ever been met or really approached.
A free press is necessary for a functioning democracy/republic, as is a free market.

So there is a natural dichotomy between an ideal standard for what is news and a practical standard for what is news.

I simply don't care the marital infidelities of people I don't know.
Don't conflate that with condoning marital infidelity. I do not condone it.

When marital infidelity crosses the line into criminal harassment, when a work place has become inappropriately sexualized in a manner that inevitably leads to such criminality - then I think it might be newsworthy.

 

I also don't buy the rationalization that, in Woods's case, for example, you have to "expose hypocrisy" because he put forth a wholesome image. First of all, who is a reporter for "Esquire" or anywhere else to make the call that the "image" is false? Marriages are complicated. Human relations are complicated. Tiger Woods may have loved his wife and his children and his dog and still fucked Perkins waitresses. Too much moralizing there for my blood. Too many assumptions.

It's also some circular reasoning. We interpreted the life he presented to us a certain way so now it is our journalistic duty to tear down said image that we decided to create in the first place.

 

This is my trigger topic. I can never give it up because I'll never understand the defenders on this. Last I can recall is debate with Baron on this.
As you say, no one cares that the President was unfaithful to his wife.
What people care about is: He was accused of and sued for sexual harassment. Did he lied or obstruct justice in that context of that subsequent investigation?
And the defenders say: Lying about sex is OK. You shouldn't ask him about it.
But he was being sued for sexual harassment. The context is everything. That is why he was asked and that is why, if he lied, it was newsworthy.

Of course, politics is a flirty business, so don't conflate that with predatory behavior, right?

 

The disagreement here is pretty fundamental and I think, ultimately, unsolvable. I care if the president is being unfaithful to his wife, because it says to me that, even in his most sacred relationship, he cannot be trusted. If your marriage is a lie, then a lot of your life is going to be a lie. That's important for people to know if you expect them to put their faith in you to do the right thing.

 

To some degree, I think you know it is. Some of these affairs are being repackaged, with the addition of a power dynamic attached to it.

The paradigm changed, man. It's all changed.

 

I agree, although if you're wife starts beating your car with a golf club and people see it, what's going to happen?
And then you crash your car?

As for hypocrisy? Totally agree with you. To whom did Tiger present a wholesome image?
The media foisted that on the public, felt duped and then felt the need to 'expose hypocrisy.'
Kettle, meet the pot.