Entries Tagged 'public vs. private' ↓

Here’s one of the shrewdest takes on Elizabeth Edwards’s behavior in the unfortunate incident involving her weasel of a husband, from Hanna Rosin at the XX Factor [e.a.]:

I find this Elizabeth Edwards post on Daily Kos excruciating. We are supposed to ride with this couple through her cancer diagnosis and relapse, through their son’s death, their fertility treatments, and the rededication of their marriage, but then we are supposed to butt the hell out when the story line veers from the tragedy and heroics. If you believe in a system, you have to live and die by it. Elizabeth Edwards buys into the culture of overconfession. She is an obsessive blogger, for God’s sake. You can’t just get suddenly pissed off because the confessional culture came back to bite you. A “string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication”???

Yes, that was a huge mistake on the part of the Edwardses. It was they who put their great marriage front and center in his campaign, as Kaus wrote recently, when he was explaining why it’s important for the MSM to cover this story.:

Edwards’ most effective anecdote this year, however, was probably the story of his popular wife Elizabeths’ struggle against cancer. He made it the emotional center of a TV ad:

And Elizabeth and I decided in the quiet of a hospital room, after 12 hours of tests and after getting very bad news, what we were going to spend our lives doing. For all those that have no voice. We are not going to quietly go away.

During a joint 60 Minutes interview focusing on his wife’s illness, Edwards explicitly linked his behavior in that struggle and his fitness for public office:

Katie Couric:
Some have suggested that you’re capitalizing on this.

John Edwards:
Here’s what I would say about that.

First of all, there’s not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. ..[snip]

But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we’d make. [E.A.]

Once Edwards brought America into his family’s private hell, all other bets were off and there was no more “zone of privacy.”

Soon it won’t only be the tabloids snooping into politicians’ affairs. This is the era of the citizen journalist, after all. And if the mainstream media proves itself too squeamish or “high-class” to report on these kinds of things—which involve lies, cover-ups, hush money, personal betrayals, and which speak directly to the issue of character—you can be sure after this major breach of the public trust from a former presidential candidate and his wife, a lot of freelancers will be operating in this territory from now on.

The public may not have a “right” to know, but the public wants to know the whole story—including the sordid stuff. Fairy tales they can get in People magazine. They want the full range of possible fabrications and truths about celebrities (and politicians), including the dirt.

If you were feeling guilty about following the juicy story of the Los Angeles mayor’s “journalist” girlfriend who reported that the mayor was having an affair but failed to mention that she was his paramour, you can stop feeling guilty. Now.

In a post titled “More Hot Mayoral Sex,” Mickey Kaus explains why political gossip is good for America (emphases in the original):

The lid is off: L.A.’s mayor faces some N.Y. tabloid-style questioning at a news conference. The L.A. Times reporter who didn’t get the story doesn’t know quite what to make of this new state of affairs–I detect a mild sneering tone! Luke Ford sees a “beautiful synchronicity.” … I think Angelenos may be actually getting interested in local politics for once, which will give us better government in the long run. Special interests (e.g., unions, developers) have less power when people are actually paying attention. [What will happen if all the pols in power are no longer womanizers, etc.?--ed Not a serious possibility.] …

The powerful have less power when people are paying attention. And people pay attention when their interest is piqued. One of the things that piques people’s interest is gossipy, tabloid-style “journalism.” Even that is better than their paying no attention at all … which is the alternative.

Long live the people’s interest, and may we find many infotaining ways to pique it!

Via ETP, hard evidence that politics is just that—the greatest show on earth. And proof that at a certain level inside the Beltway, after dark, all of those harsh words rendered in print and harsher judgments barked into microphones are left behind. Because at that level they’re civilized people, you see. (Eric Alterman thinks otherwise—he thinks New York is more forgiving after dark than Washington—as he mentions in this fascinating episode of bloggingheads.tv, about which more another time.)

The photo below, featuring Paul Wolfowitz and Arianna Huffington, *** was taken this past Saturday night at a reception before the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. To read the press last week and over the weekend, you’d think that Paul Wolfowitz is fighting for his very life as the long knives at the World Bank slash him and his girlfriend.

[[ Indeed, he may not survive this attempted takedown. I don't feel particularly sorry for him. I am spitting mad on behalf of his girlfriend, however. And if any case ever cried out for attention from feminists, this is it: an accomplished woman is forced to leave her job, where she's up for a promotion, because her boyfriend, who has nothing at all to do with her work, is appointed the head of the institution she works for. But you would have to put aside other political considerations ("Are you now or have you ever been a Neocon?"---addresssed by Garance Franke-Ruta in that same episode of bloggingheads.tv) in order to come to that conclusion, and I don't see too many people other than sturdy Christopher Hitchens, that noted woman-hater, making this obvious case and standing up yet again for intellectual honesty and a measure of justice. ]]

But back to my point. Here Paul Wolfowitz is smiling warmly at Arianna Huffington, who wrote a blog post just last week titled “Are Gonzales and Wolfowitz the Next to Swim with the Fishes?”

Arianna with Paul Wolfowitz and AOL founder James Kinsey

Left or right, progressive or conservative, Republican or Democrat, hawk or dove—these folks are all the same. Moreover, they are (as is said about the rich) not like you and me. They’re insiders. Their game is about getting there and staying there.

Remember that the next time you feel their intimate presence and read their words via this great new democratic forum, the blogosphere. Not everyone here is created equal. They are not like you and me.
———-

*** She’s so tall! (Jane Fonda is no shrimp, but look at the height difference!)

HuffPo founder Arianna Huffington with actress, activist and radio host Jane Fonda

Bloggers for Edwards are causing a ruckus because their previously published words and opinions don’t exactly comport with Edwards’s messages and/or positions—or with the image that some of Edwards’s fans expect of him.

Ezra Klein, writing at TAPPED, thinks it’s unfair—to the bloggers.

And if it turns out that a possibly controversial public record will effectively bar you from political positions down the road, how many young people will avoid the wonderful, chaotic, educational world of the blogosphere because they don’t want to close off future options?

Well, not blogging is one option. Those bloggers could also pause, count to ten, and use the critical thinking skills (presumably) bestowed on them by their high-priced Ivy League educations before hitting “publish.”