news-record.com

BLOGS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

The Editor's Log

Publishing the love letters

Reader Bob asked me this question: "If you were the The State, would you have any qualms about publishing the e-mail love letters?"

I said no. Given a story with this sort of heat and accompanying reader -- no, citizen -- interest, how could a newspaper not publish them? Bob took the position that the e-mails show a man in love, but not much else. The governor "disappeared, reappeared and admitted why is the news to me -- not the love ltrs." The rest is tabloid stuff.

I hear that, but think the reader interest is too high to withhold information that, while sensational, is relevant to a continuing story involving a sitting governor. And, the language involved was hardly offensive. (That said, editors here snipped a line or two from one of the e-mails out of concern that his references were too explicit. I don't think the snips were necessary, but I wasn't here to make that call.)

What do you think? Would you have published them? Any difference in publishing them in the paper and publishing them online?

Update: Great responses on Twitter. Most of them taking Bob's position that they are personal and private and not particularly relevant to the story.

sonyajk: Not sure I would've. I felt like I was invading his privacy by reading them, and it didn't add anything necessary to the story. Don't you wonder about the ethics of publishing them, given that you're probably playing into someone's vendetta?

JeffHarbert: Absolutely not. 'Public' mails or not, it's an entirely private matter.

dankennedy_nu: Since Sanford was using his personal e-mail account, I wouldn't have published his love letters. But I enjoyed reading them! The e-mails are relevant, but not that relevant. It's his public acknowledgment that is news.

jiconoclast: I'm not sure how I feel about publishing someone's personal e-mails. Something unethical about that. Work e-mail is diff.

greglinch: In Sanford case, I say: Public figure + newsworthy = run them.

Permalink
Tags: Ethics

Posted by John Robinson on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 10:59 am

What do you think?

5 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Other Recent Entries

RSS: Subscribe to this blog

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

andy.aldridge

June 25, 2009 - 12:56 pm EDT

I think the fact that in the emails, he discussed his role as a Governor, legislative issues, etc. alongside the "sparky" parts, blurs the line between work and personal. In this case, he's a publicly-elected official and the tie goes to the runner (of the news) despite the fact they were sent and received from a personal email address.

lexalexander

June 25, 2009 - 1:49 pm EDT

Two other factors to ponder: 1) Adultery is a crime in SC. You can make a case that it shouldn't be, but it is. And the governor, as head of the executive branch, is, among other things, the state's top law enforcement officer. 2) There's at least some indication that Sanford may have used public money in furtherance of his trysting. If the e-mails conclusively proved it, I would definitely run at least those e-mails, and perhaps all of them to show no additional evidence was being hidden.

John Robinson

June 25, 2009 - 1:59 pm EDT

Thanks, Andy and Lex. I posed the question to one person: What if we said, "We have e-mails that the governor and Maria exchanged, but because they are personal and don't involve the public's business, we're not going to publish them."

Imagine how that would be received.

I know we would have debated publishing them...getting into the same debate internally as I did here. I understand all the concerns, but I think I would still have come down on the side of publication.

Interested

June 25, 2009 - 7:24 pm EDT

In response to "Would you have published them?", no. What is newsworthy with this story, and to me what seems to be lost amid the sensationalism surrounding the affair, is the lack of leadership and responsibility to the state's business demonstrated by the governor. The media is giving more attention to the affair - a matter of concern for his family, certainly. But should that be the main focus of the citizens who elected this man to tend to the state's business? Or should they be more concerned that he left the state somewhat vulnerable by not leaving someone else clearly in charge when he knew he would be incommunicado?

lexalexander

June 26, 2009 - 1:38 pm EDT

I've raised that same point in other forums, including pointing out -- only half-jokingly -- that he left the state leaderless for a week during hurricane season.