Abstract

CSJ-08-0018.0PO This case is about how journalists make daily decisions on what to write, and what not to write. In July 2008 Politico media correspondent Michael Calderone thought he had a very good story. He had noticed that while online publications had chosen to cover an alleged affair between former presidential candidate John Edwards and a mistress, Rielle Hunter, the mainstream media had so far ignored the story. The tabloid National Enquirer had broken the story, and bloggers had opined at great length about it, but no news organization except Fox News had mentioned it. Calderone found this contrast fascinating, and ideal material for his column. But he worried because to write about the blogger vs. mainstream gap would oblige him to write about the alleged affair as well. Was Edwards any longer a national figure, and his doings a matter of public interest? What consideration, if any, was due his wife Elizabeth, battling a second bout of cancer? Yet the story was exactly what Calderone was paid to cover.

Students can discuss the fine line between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. When is a public figure a celebrity, subject to different privacy laws than private citizens? Does it matter whether the figure, if a politician, is currently holding public office? Students should also engage in debate about whether there are different rules for blogs versus other media. Why did bloggers feel no compunction about covering the alleged affair, while mainstream media did? Were both sides correct in their behavior? Why? Students will gain an understanding of the kind of nuanced editorial decisions journalists and columnists make every day.

This case can be used in a class on beat reporting; on ethics in journalism; on media reporting; or on celebrity journalism.

Credits