COMensarations
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Now They Decide to be Cautious
Editors and reporters are advising caution in publishing the DC Madam’s list of clients. Why the caution now?
This story in a trade publication polls editors at various newspapers on whether or not they will publish the list of clients of the DC Madam, Jeane Palfrey.
According to the story,
Washington-area editors say they are following the story, but remain reluctant to print such a list, were it available, without serious scrutiny.
Why do I suspect this translates to “We want to see how many Republicans are on the list, and check to see if any of our local politicians are on it before we publish?” If it’s an assignation with an intern, even one who’s technically an adult, it’s all over the front page, if the official is a Republican. But if an official is a client of a clearly illegal activity, they have to be cautious.
One editor said
“If one of the names is wrong and you print it, how do you unring that bell for that person?”
Good heavens! Do you suppose the Duke Lacrosse team experience actually taught these people something? Or is it a case where white, male college students are presumed guilty, but when they’ve matured and become white, male public figures they’re presumed innocent? What’s the difference? Except that public figures can include or exclude selected members of the press from important announcements and stories.
I’d like to think the press were being careful for the right reasons, but unfortunately, their willingness to run with untested and unproven information in the past makes their current attitudes suspect.