Midterm 421

Kalie Jones JRN421 Midterm The media has always scrutinized presidential and vice presidential candidates, however, since John McCain announced that Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska would be his running mate earlier this summer she has been subjected to an overwhelming amount of coverage. One issue surrounding Palin that the media has been especially interested in is the pregnancy of her 17-year old daughter Bristol. For what seemed like weeks stories about the teenage girl filled newspapers and broadcasts. Stories about what the pregnancy could mean for Palin’s campaign turned into stories covering issues such as contraceptive methods, abortion, the role of the parent and teenage pregnancy in general. One of the biggest issues surrounding these stories was whether Bristol Palin should be subject to the same intense scrutiny as her mother, written about extensively by the nation’s top news sources. Barack Obama didn’t believe so. He issued a statement that “people’s families are off limits and people’s children are especially off limits,” encouraging those in his campaign to steer clear of the subject. Others however have argued that coverage of the teenage pregnancy has a place in politics because it brings attention to bigger issues such as questions about abstinence-only sex education, the pro-life versus pro-choice debate and how Palin’s family responsibilities could affect her ability to govern. Even after examining various coverage of Bristol’s pregnancy it can be difficult to determine what is fair and what goes too far. Just a few days after the announcement of Bristol’s pregnancy, Good Morning America aired a segment on teenage pregnancy. They asked a group of teens what they thought about sex, pregnancy and Bristol’s situation. It is difficult to determine

what purpose this served in the political realm. The segment, although focused on Bristol’s pregnancy, didn’t go in depth on issues such as abortion and sexeducation, a majority of what aired consisted of Bristol’s peers judging her and her pregnancy. That has no place in journalism especially not when the pregnancy in question is that of a highly visible 17 year old. Even with her mother running for Vice President, mere criticism of Bristol runs the risk of damaging her emotionally. Without using news of the pregnancy to raise important political issues the criticism doesn’t serve a purpose. Good Morning America took debate of the issue too far, to the point where it had very little if any political relevancy. Fortunately, not all media took the same approach as Good Morning America when covering the story. One piece, written by Dahlia Lithwick that did an exceptional job of tying Bristol’s pregnancy into Palin’s political campaign was featured on Slate.com, titled “Bristol’s Choice”. The article mentioned Bristol’s pregnancy as background information but then tied it into more important issues such as Palin’s views on abortion, parental veto, and the right to chose. The article asserts that although Bristol didn’t have much of a choice in deciding to have the baby due to her mother’s strong pro-life views not all women should be constrained by those same views. Lithwick took news of Bristol’s pregnancy and turned it into something politically news worthy. “Bristol’s Choice” focused on the issue of abortion and who should ultimately be responsible for deciding whether to have a baby, an issue that no doubt is relevant to Palin’s campaign and this election. Another issue that came up after Bristol’s pregnancy was announced was how the news would reflect on Palin as a parent and in turn how those views would affect voters’ views on Palin’s ability to govern. The first question here is not whether there is any validity to these arguments. The question is whether it is

ethical for the media to use something like Bristol’s pregnancy to debate how voters may react to Palin. Is it fair for the media to put that much pressure on the child of a candidate? Obama recognized this dilemma and asked that democratic reporters covering the campaign leave Palin’s family out of it, however, many articles still examined the issue. In “Calculated Risk with Female Voters is Suddenly Even Harder to Calculate,” a democratic strategist, Jim Jordan said “it’s just a lot for voters to absorb, the thought of both the vice president and her daughter with infants in the Naval Observatory.” Not only did the piece use the situation to paint a fictional picture in readers’ heads it also used language to highlight that the pregnancy was not a good situation either for Bristol or her mother’s campaign. That’s not to say, however, that the article didn’t have any merit. It also examined whether the media was shying away from coverage to the point that they were also shying away from important political issues. It’s difficult to know what stories can be considered ethical. Is it OK for a story to paint a negative image of a Bristol if it also makes a worthwhile point? Newsweek ran an article titled “Politics and Parenting” which also examined how Bristol’s pregnancy may affect Palin’s campaign. The article, among other things, asked who Americans would blame for Bristol’s pregnancy. Is it fair for the media to assume that a pregnancy is something that requires the placement of blame? Teenage pregnancies can happen for many reasons, is it ethical for Newsweek to imply that every teenage pregnancy must be negative? The piece used Bristol’s pregnancy as a reason to discuss how voters may view Palin however in doing so it also subjected Bristol to harsh words. Although this is not an uncommon practice many people would argue that painting the 17 year old daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate in such a negative light carries with it some questions of ethics. How much additional pressure does the media place on

Bristol by suggesting that her pregnancy could affect the outcome of the election? At the time Bristol got pregnant it’s not unlikely that she, along with millions of other Americans, never expected her mother to be nominated for Vice President. If it fair for the media to assert, such as Newsweek did, that this one “mistake” could hold that much weight? Not all coverage of Bristol’s pregnancy, however, placed as much responsibility on her. Many media simply used the announcement of Bristol’s pregnancy as a convenient time to bring up pressing issues that were previously over-shadowed. All Things Considered, a regular segment for National Public Radio aired a piece about “Teen Sex, Sex Education, and Sarah Palin.” The piece took the opportunity to discuss Sarah Palin’s view that abstinence, not sex education, should be taught in schools. In it, they used Bristol’s pregnancy to question whether or not the Governor would still stand strong on that issue… and it did so in a way that clearly pointed out the irony of the situation. Although the segment brought up the important issue of sex-education it essentially used Bristol as an example of the problems inherent within Palin’s abstinence only sex-education plan. Is it fair for the media to pit Bristol’s actions against her mother’s views? Not all articles about Bristol’s pregnancy expressed views on specific issues. Some, such as the New York Times’ “Palin’s Teen Daughter is Pregnant; New G.O.P. Tumult” simply stated the facts about the impact the announcement would have on the McCain-Palin campaign. The article quoted a wide variety of people sharing their views about the affect they believed the news would have. The question with the ethics of this article isn’t necessarily the way in which Bristol was portrayed but rather, if the story should have ever made it to national news sources in the first place.

Not all journalists thought so. A piece in Politico discussed coverage of Bristol’s pregnancy as proof that Palin was being “thrown into the media major leagues.” The piece discussed that although journalists in Alaska knew about the pregnancy they chose not to cover it, but once it hit the national front the story exploded. Why would the national media go into such a frenzy over the news when local reporters couldn’t have cared less about it? Do national reporters not respect the same boundaries as local reporters, are they willing to cross lines that local reporters aren’t? Or, did local media have it right all along. Is Bristol’s pregnancy just not important enough to take up space on the front pages of newspapers across the country? The biggest issue here is whether or not journalists are crossing the line when they subject a candidate’s child to intense scrutiny. Some people argue that in today’s age politicians are celebrities in their own right and that because celebrities’ children are followed closely by paparazzi it is not surprising that a candidate’s child would also receive that kind of attention. “They’ve become a little more fair game, as all celebrities’ children have,” said John Matvikoin an interview for World Magazine. Other people disagree, saying that subjecting children to that kind of scrutiny can be a dangerous thing. But what about the candidate who parades their children up on stage as part of a campaign strategy? At what point are the media crossing the line? An article that ran in World Magazine, titled “Kids in the public eye” made a good point. As the media continued to cover Bristol Palin’s pregnancy the Republican campaign said that enough was enough. It would seemthis would be the point where Bristol was no longer fair game, as the article pointed out, however, after these cries were made Palin continued to bring her daughter and future son-in-law on stage at campaign rallies in an effort to paint a picture of a family with “the same ups and downs as any

other.”

If the Republican’s had said enough is enough and had accordingly kept

Bristol out of the spotlight then the media should have dropped it. The fact that Palin and McCain continued to use her pregnancy as a campaign strategy makes it difficult to determine whether or not it is OK to continue writing about her. Is parading Bristol around as a strategic move ethical in the first place? Palin asked the media to keep her daughter out of the spotlight but then continued to thrust her into it. She asked the media not to talk about her daughter’s pregnancy but then used it as proof that her family experiences the same “ups and downs” as many other families. However, because Bristol is only 17 years old should journalists have left her alone? It becomes difficult to make the distinction between what is OK for a journalist to cover (and under what circumstances it is OK to do so) and what should be avoided at all times. The questions raised by the media while covering Bristol’s pregnancy are important and will continue to be debated from an ethical standpoint even after the Nov. 4 election. Was it ethical for the media to discuss Bristol’s pregnancy in the first place? Maybe not. Was it inevitable? Yes. In a presidential debate it seems that most anything has become fair game for journalists to cover. Despite whether or not it is fair to cover a candidate’s child or family life, the real questions stem from the ways in which journalists chose to cover these stories. Do journalists present the information in a way that sensationalizes the story or can it be argued that the story serves some greater political purpose? Although some coverage of Bristol Palin was unfair some also served to bring up important issues. Not all coverage of Bristol Palin was ethical by traditional journalistic standards. Stories and blogs that broke rumors that Palin’s son Trig was actually Bristol’s child for instance proved to be nothing more than the equivalent of stories

you might find in a tabloid. Other stories, however, focused not so much on Bristol Palin, her illegitimate child or her future husband as they did on the real issues of the day such as abortion, sex-education and the rights of women. Stories that focused on these issues served a greater purpose and they brought attention to Palin’s views, her ability to govern, and the direction she may help take the country if elected Vice President. Would these issues have been considered if news of Bristol’s pregnancy never came out? One can only hope that they would have. Was it necessary for journalists to even mention Bristol’s pregnancy in the coverage though? Although stories that used Bristol’s pregnancy as a gateway to focus on more politically important issues did raise important points, should the pregnancy even been included? After the first day the story broke, no. After Palin and McCain first issued the statement about Bristol’s pregnancy, fair and neutral coverage of the announcement would have been expected. After the initial story, however, the focus should have shifted away from Bristol to Palin’s views on the surrounding issues. Mention of Bristol’s mistake or Palin’s family crisis should have been avoided. It seems that despite what candidates may call for leaving children out of campaign coverage may be becoming less and less of an option. When it comes to covering a story about the child of a presidential candidate, however, any journalist should first and foremost consider the implications of the coverage. From a journalistic standpoint, it may not matter how a 17 year old pregnant girl is portrayed, from an ethical standpoint, however, it should.

Rescources: 1. Palin is Thrown into Media Major League, by Michael Calderone, Politico.com; September 2, 2008. 2. Palin’s Teen Daughter is Pregnant; New G.O.P. Tumult, by Katharine Q. Seelye, The New York Times; September 2, 2008. 3. Teen Sex, Sex Education, and Sarah Palin, by Brenda Wilson, All Things Considered, NPR; October 9, 2008. 4. Politics and Parenting, Newsweek; September 1, 2008. 5. Calculated Risk With Female Voters is Suddenly Even Harder to Calculate, by Anne E. Kornblut and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post; September 2, 2008. 6. Teens Speak out on Palin’s Pregnancy, Good Morning America; September 4, 2008. 7. Kids in the Public Eye; Where Does the Line Lie ?, By Ted Anthony, World Magazine (Christian Weekly); September 4, 2008. 8. Bristol’s choice, by Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com; September 5, 2008.