When are a presidents children a legitimate subject of media coverage and when are they not? Thats the question raised in the wake of this weeks news that Jenna and Barbara Bush, president George W. Bushs 19-year-old twin daughters, were among those allegedly attempting to purchase alcohol at an Austin, Texas, restaurant. Austin police issued citations to the two young women Thursday: Jenna Bush was charged with using someone elses identification to buy a drink; Barbara Bush was cited for alcohol possession.
The incident less than a month after Jenna Bush was arrested for underage alcohol possession in the same city. She pled no contest to that charge and was ordered to pay $51.25 in court costs, perform 8 hours of community service and attend six hours of alcohol awareness classes.
Following publication of articles at MSNBC.com on both incidents, a number of readers expressed their dismay. A few protested that Jenna Bush was getting off too easy, but the majority by far argued that the media in general, and MSNBC.com in particular, had no business publicizing either incident.
A double standard?
The incidents involving the Bush daughters became a matter of public record because of police involvement, not because the media violated any moratorium on covering the private lives of First Children.
Some of those critics charged a political double standard. I find it fascinating that the news media declared a moratorium on Chelsea Clintons private life during her youth, but have no such scruples regarding President Bushs children, e-mailed reader Patricia Bleasdale. I will use this story as evidence of your lack of ethics and balance.
Others were upset at what they saw as the worst sort of tabloid journalism. Its bad enough the media dredges up the less than perfect things that candidates for political office did in their youth, wrote David Fuller of Hudson, Ohio. Now you find it necessary to disseminate the missteps of their children.
I dont buy the double-standard argument. As far as I know, Chelsea didnt have any run-ins with the law after her father entered public life. The incidents involving the Bush daughters became a matter of public record because of police involvement, not because the media violated any moratorium on covering the private lives of First Children.
Tabloid attitude
The tabloid journalism issue is a closer call, in my view, though I still come down on the side of these incidents being legitimate news.
Were Jenna Bush and her sister Barbara treated fairly by the media?
Celebrities in general and politicians in particular effectively cede a big chunk of their right to privacy when they choose their paths. In the case of the latter, the more important and powerful the office in a democratic society, the more of that right to privacy they cede. The publics right to know whom theyre electing takes precedence. That clearly applies to what is arguably the most important job on the planet the presidency of the United States.
A family affair
But what about presidents families, and particularly their minor children? They didnt choose to live their lives in a fishbowl. They probably didnt have a vote when their father chose to accept living his life that way as a price of high office. Thats reason enough for the media to steer clear of intrusive coverage of these youngsters. Who Jenna or Barbara Bush are dating, for example, is probably nobodys business but their own and their familys. Ditto their school marks, their hobbies, what they like to watch on TV, or any number of other truly private issues. Even their politics. And steer clear of such things the media has just as it did with Chelsea Clinton.
MSNBC.coms critics say minor, youthful indiscretions as common as underage drinking should be treated the same way. After all, most young people dont see their name in the next days paper when it shows up on a police blotter after an alcohol-related arrest. But like it or not, the children of a president are different. They may not have chosen their lives. But then, none of us had a vote in our parentage, and we all live with consequences good and bad of the choices our parents made.
In the spotlight
Like it or not, the children of a president are different.
The Bush daughters no doubt enjoy some benefits from being First Children. If nothing else, they have enviable opportunities for travel and meeting fascinating people. The flip side of the same coin means that some of the media spotlight that shines on their father spills over onto them. That doesnt just pertain to run-ins with the law. Jenna Bush was in the news last December when she had an emergency appendectomy on Christmas Day, for example. That also wouldnt have made the news if it had involved most any other college freshman. But I dont recall any complaints about tabloid journalism then. I assume that if a Bush daughter wins a prestigious award, gets engaged, or changes universities, that will also be news only because of who they are.
Robert Aglow, executive producer for news at MSNBC.com, acknowledges that the presidents earlier alcohol problems and his abstention since age 40 may have been an unspoken subtext in evaluating the incidents involving his daughters. But I think their run-ins would have been reported even without the (presidents) history.
Clearly, if any actions by the Bush daughters impacted, or reflected on, their fathers ability to do his job, there would be no question about their newsworthiness. I wouldnt try to make such an argument here. To me, the fact that their father is president is reason enough for his daughters to be more newsworthy than the average 19-year-old.
