Try not to gag as you read the Chicago Tribune’s pompous defense of outing seamy details of Jack Ryan’s sex life. (The site is registered, alas. But it’s free.) The argument is: all court records should be open to the public, even divorces; there could have been something in those files that voters might consider pertinent to Ryan’s ability to serve in public office; and, “because we could.” Here’s a particularly loathesome sentiment:
Voters need information about the views, background and character of the people they elect to office. Voters can’t make informed decisions about a candidate’s positions or character without such information.
That’s why, as part of their coverage of candidates for political office, reporters seek a wide range of documents and opinions to help voters understand the candidates.
Case in point: the once-sealed divorce files of former Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Blair Hull. After the Tribune reported that Hull’s ex-wife had sought an order of protection against him during their divorce proceedings, Hull relented to the release of his divorce documents.
Many voters took into account the revelations in those documents that his ex-wife said he had struck her and threatened her. Hull was leading the field before he released the file. He finished third in the primary in March.
So taking a wife to a sex club is now equivalent to beating her? You’ll notice not one word in the editorial about something called privacy. The very concept doesn’t exist for the Trib editors. Well, one response to this would be to investigate the private married lives of journalists and editors at the Chicago Tribune. Readers could call them up and ask them about their sex lives. They hold a public trust. Shouldn’t the public have a right to know if the editor or reporter had some difficulties in his marriage years ago? The next time the Trib’s editor appears in public for questioning, he should be asked whether he has ever committed adultery. Why not? The stunning aspect of the Tribune’s self-defense is that it admits that it was on a fishing expedition. They had no reason to believe that there was anything in a sealed divorce document that could be in any way related to someone’s ability to hold public office – except, of course, something privately embarrassing. Well, they got their scalp. On to the next one.
THE TRANSCRIPT: Part of it now exists on the web. Fisk away.
The Dish 