Politics and the Public Eye

Gone are the days of separating business from pleasure.  In the past, many politicians have been able to keep their personal life outside of the public eye and for the most part under wraps.  In the technology driven world of today, indiscretions are increasingly prone to exposure and therefor subject to public approval.  Candidates and incumbents alike are being forced to either face the music about past actions, lie and attempt to cover them up, or simply avoid the issue until it is old news.  While politicians and government employees in general are no different than any other group of humans, they do come under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and are often subject to losing either their current job or elections as the public's opinion of their actions weighs into the equation.  But does this really serve democracy?  Should we hire and fire our political leaders based on standards of personal behavior that many civilians or businessmen do not subscribe to?  Is someone who partakes in an extramarital affair still fit to lead, or should they immediately be removed from power?  All of these questions are forced to be addressed when the media brings attention to a politician's actions, shining light on a very relevant topic of the day: Should the media stay out of personal conduct issues, or is it their role as a "watchdog" to alert the public when indiscretions arise?

Perhaps the answer to that question lies in ones own personal opinion and can be traced back to their own moral code.  While some people would quickly condemn affairs and use them to immediately disqualify any elected representative, others would surely say that it does not matter so long as they can govern.  A subscriber to the latter school of thought would surely agree that in a world with so many problems, we should bar competent individuals from setting policy and regulation just for questionable personal conduct.  The former group, of course would contend that personal and professional behavior are inseparable, and if you cannot keep one course on the straight and narrow then you cannot guide the other.  Each of these views have individual merits to stand on.  Each of these views are in direct conflict with one another, and still a matter of debate.  What is not up for debate is the level of influence the media has on citizens, and how its coverage of personal issue can mark a decisive turning point in the careers of those individuals who find themselves caught up in the latest and greatest scandal.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of affairs in the media lately.  Anthony Weiner serves as a relevant example of media involvement in personal behavior.  After two separate "sexting" scandals, Weiner's bid for mayor seems far fetched.  While the public seemed to forgive him for his original indiscretion, the mood seems to have shifted after the second incident.  As another example of media influence, General David Patraeus resigned from his post as CIA director amid allegations of an extramarital affair during his time in the military.  Despite being celebrated as a dedicated civil servant by "both sides of the aisle", Gen. Patraeus' behavior and the potential fallout from it caused his career to end badly bruised.  A comparison of the outcomes of the Bill Clinton and JFK affairs gives clear incite into the media's role in public opinion.  Whereas both men had affairs while in office, the media chose not to cover Kennedy's affairs, leading to a far different outcome than that of Clinton.  While the verdict is still out on whether or not the media should be involved in questionable personal conduct issues of officials, their influence has been clearly demonstrated when they choose to become involved.