Even Private Acts Affect Public Duties
Editor’s note: This is the second winning entry in a monthly essay contest for high school students sponsored by The Times. Look for details on the Education page, published each Monday on B2.
This month’s topic: Ventura County Judge Robert Bradley recently was arrested twice on suspicion of drunk driving. President Clinton has been accused in a sex scandal. Are the media paying too much attention to the private business of public leaders or serving the legitimate interests of citizens?
Ventura County Judge Robert Bradley, a man responsible for upholding justice in our community, has been arrested twice for drunk driving. As long as he is sober on the bench, does it really matter if he imbibes privately?
President Clinton, the “chief” of our nation, is in the middle of a growing sex scandal. Does his sex life really have anything to do with his job as president?
Why are the media scrutinizing these incidents?
Although many would like to believe that what goes on in the private lives of our public officials is not important to their duties, their behavior at home has a direct and unavoidable impact on their behavior at work. And because their behavior at work has a direct impact on us, their constituents, the media have a responsibility to report any negative personal behaviors of these public officials.
Many attempts have been made to protect our leaders’ privacy but none have worked as the media have become less controllable with the growth of the Internet and other new information mediums. Perhaps the biggest help to the media in the face of today’s scandals came from the Supreme Court, which recently disallowed the president [some] legal immunity while in office, making it easier for the media to dig deeper.
But the question remains: Just because reporters are allowed to reveal the private business of public leaders, does that mean they should? The answer is a qualified yes--as long as they do so responsibly and objectively.
Often the actions being reported are not the issue; the motives for the actions are the real concern of the public. In the case of Judge Bradley, both the actions and the motives count. If he cannot make a sound judgment regarding his own condition, how can we, as citizens, be guaranteed that he will make sound judgments regarding others? If he disobeys the law himself, how can he hold others to the law with any authority? He cannot, and the public has every right to know about the charges, not only because arrests and trials are matters of public record but because his actions constitute hypocrisy and poor judgment of the highest order and the citizens of this county should not suffer because of them.
President Clinton’s case is a little more complex. The investigation thus far is based almost entirely on hearsay, and determining how much bearing this issue has on his duties is difficult.
The president committing adultery is not the issue; that act itself does not affect the public. But if the president lied to the American people about his infidelities or asked Monica Lewinsky to lie for him, he is committing perjury, punishable by law. And if he lies about this scandal, how can the American people be sure he will not lie about other issues? We do not deserve to be lied to by an elected official and that should be the real issue in the media coverage of the sex scandal.
Public officials are elected by us and should be accountable to us. Whether actions are public, like supporting legislation, or private, like engaging in immoral behavior, citizens have a right to know. The only way we will know is if the media continue, objectively and responsibly, to report from the meeting room to the bedroom.
