It has been mentioned here before, of course: Newspapers question every other institution. We ought to be held to the same standard.
This time, the inevitable question for this ombudsman forum — even before the first readers began wondering in phone calls and e-mail — was a new twist on a seemingly age-old query: What did this paper know and when did it know it?
For starters, Post editors say the paper received none of the e-mail messages to congressional pages — as several other newspapers have said they did — that led to last week’s resignation of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fort Pierce. As for the congressman being gay, Larry Langer spoke for many readers in raising another valid issue.
“The Palm Beach Post’s stated policy of not reporting on a politician’s sexual orientation unless it is relevant to a news story represents a grave disservice to the voting public,” Mr. Langer wrote. “In an effort to appease the religious right wing, Republican political strategists have made the civil rights of homosexuals a central political issue. To the extent that Mark Foley also sought to appeal to these ultra-conservative voters, he capitalized politically in this strategy.
“His political deception not only raises character issues, but it subjected Mr. Foley to blackmail attempts from those who could profit from threatening to expose his secret life to public scrutiny,” Mr. Langer said. “In the future, you should investigate rumors regarding politicians, report the facts, and let the people decide what is relevant.”
John Hayes said it appears that the staff “has known for a long time that Mark Foley was gay but chose not to reveal it to the people who buy the paper. Why would you closet this information and not tell your readers since it has been reported in The Post that lots of people knew it, except the readers of The Palm Beach Post?”
From Port St. Lucie, Joyce Viggiano noted that the newspaper “has asserted that it did not report the rumors of Congressman Foley’s homosexuality because it was not relevant to a specific news story. When the congressman called a public news conference to address published allegations, when he suddenly decided to withdraw from the Senate race shortly after that, and when he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act — his own homosexuality was relevant.
“I believe the real reason that The Post did not report that Foley is gay is that stated by Miami Herald Editor Tom Fiedler: that they had known and liked Mr. Foley for many years and were reluctant to publish information that might be politically and personally damaging to him. Fiedler admits that he now believes it was wrong not to reveal what they knew, or at least investigate further. It was not sufficient to simply ask the congressman and accept his word,” Ms. Viggiano wrote. The Post has reported in the past his refusal to comment on the rumors, but Ms. Viggiano said the paper “would have served its readers well by publishing the ‘open secret’ stories that it has published in recent days long before now.”
Post Editor John Bartosek, who is ideally suited to provide insight on the paper’s approach, said the newspaper “has had a clear policy for many years: We don’t report the sexual orientation of politicians unless it’s relevant. It’s not a perfect policy. We know it has flaws and drawbacks. But we think it is a logical and ethical way to do business.
“We make the best news judgment we can about what’s relevant,” Mr. Bartosek said. “Before I became editor, I was The Post’s ‘elections czar’ for much of the 1990s, supervising local, state and national coverage, and I was also managing editor for five-plus years. At various times over the years, I have argued both to publish and to not publish information about Mark Foley because there have been compelling reasons on both sides. The editor makes the final decision.
” ‘Outing’ a politician to gain an edge in a campaign or to punish him for voting a certain way on a gay issue aren’t sufficient reasons,” he added. “We didn’t run speculation after Foley withdrew from the 2004 Senate race because we had no facts to back it up. We considered privacy, even for high-level politicians, and the news value of whatever story we could have written. We know it’s easy to ruin someone’s life and career while citing the First Amendment and ‘the public’s right to know’ about private matters.
“The big news about Mark Foley in the past week is that he wrote explicit messages to teen boys, not that he’s gay. We stuck to the news and what was relevant, reporting the details of the messages and posting links on our Web site to the ones too raunchy to print. When hundreds of e-mailers and bloggers made statements without proof (rumors) that he is gay, we reported it this time because it was the political backlash to the week’s stunning revelations. When his attorney included Foley’s sexual orientation as part of the explanation for his actions, we reported that, too.
“I got an earful from folks who question our policy and disagree with our decisions,” said Mr. Bartosek. “However, we will stick to the policy, and we will try to be wise in applying it. It will come up again, I’m sure. When it does, our standard for verifying a person’s sexual orientation and being able to explain why it’s relevant will be very high.”
C.B. Hanif is an editorial writer and ombudsman for The Palm Beach Post. Items for Listening Post may be sent to lp@pbpost.com
