Problems arising for journalism in the coverage of a politcal scandal

When I think of Bill Clinton, I can’t help but recall the infamous sex scandal that occurred during his presidency. Unfortunately, I do not instantly think of the work he did as the president however, during his presidency the press chose to focus on his personal life as opposed to the decisions he was making in the United States government.

The Online Journalism Review depicts a timeline of how the press reported on a sex scandal involving Clinton. The case of Danny Williams first broke in 1992 when his mother claimed she had an affair with Clinton and Williams was his son. At this time the mainstream press investigated the claims and found there was not enough evidence to report on the story. However, six years later during Clinton’s presidency, the story resurged and this time went viral.

After being reported on NewsMax.com, a politically conservative website, major mainstream publications began publishing the story, many of these media outlets being owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Ultimately, the DNA test proved Clinton was not the father of Williams, and while retractions were made the story still impacted the way the public viewed the president.

This scandal shows two major problems in the media today. One of them being the effect a single owner of multiple news outlets has on the stories that are published. The other being how reporters chose what stories to report on.

Murdoch clearly was biased against Clinton’s political party affiliation. This scandal gave Murdoch (or any other leaders of conservative media outlets) to influence the public to have a negative opinion of Clinton. The public also may not have been aware that this bias exists and therefore solely focused on the story being presented to them.

This goes back to the idea of transparency in journalism. These stories were being presented as if they were coming from an objective/unbiased source, when really that was not the case. Had transparency been put into effect the readers would have been able to take where the story was coming from into consideration.

While the lack of transparency is an issue, I think the larger problem is that this story was reported so heavily. Although I do not condone Clinton’s extramarital affairs, I’m not sure if it is my place to judge a public official based off of their personal life.

During Clinton’s presidency there were so much news related to government action that was not getting the same attention as the president’s personal problems. This is detrimental to the public because not only does it take away from their awareness of what is going on in the government it also takes away from the idea of journalists acting as a fourth estate. Journalists were meant to report truthfully on the actions of government official in relation to their job position and how these actions affect the nation. 

In some cases releasing information about a public official’s personal life may be important to share with the public but this is always depending on the situation. Overall, journalists should be not focusing on the idea that “sex sells,” and automatically expose an aspect of someones personal life. They should be looking to share necessary truthful information with the public.