How Much Snooping Is Fair And Relevant? (Press, 15 May 1987)

The collapse of Gary Hart's presidential campaign in May 1987 has sparked an intense debate regarding the limits of a politician's right to privacy and the ethics of investigative reporting. Hart's withdrawal from the Democratic nomination race followed revelations by the Miami Herald about his alleged extramarital affair with 29-year-old actress Donna Rice, leading to discussions about whether a candidate's sexual behaviour should be public knowledge. Hart, aged 50, refuted claims of infidelity, asserting that Rice had left his Washington townhouse discreetly and was not observed by a surveillance team. However, the situation escalated when the Washington Post uncovered additional evidence of Hart's infidelities, culminating in his decision to exit the race. Historically, Washington journalists had maintained a gentlemen's agreement to keep sexual indiscretions of politicians private, as exemplified by past presidents such as Harding, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson. This unspoken code has since been challenged, with Hart being directly questioned by reporters about his personal life amid rising accusations. While some analysts believe Hart's aggressive responses to the rumours opened the door to scrutiny, others contend that the reporting on his private life was unwarranted. The dichotomy in views varies significantly among political commentators; some argue that even if a candidate attempts to dismiss their private life as separate from their professional responsibilities, they should expect to face probing inquiries, especially when there are indicators of wrongdoing. The debate extends to questions of journalistic ethics, with some, like columnist Edwin Yoder, advocating for privacy protections while others, including Democratic contenders, assert the necessity of public knowledge concerning a candidate's personal life to gauge their trustworthiness. The unfolding scandal around Hart's campaign appears to have shifted the landscape of political reporting, moving away from the earlier tradition of refraining from discussing a candidate's sexual conduct. In the context of Hart's downfall, various political figures expressed differing views on privacy and transparency in public life. Jack Kemp, a Republican candidate, noted that candidates must accept scrutiny as part of their role. Meanwhile, figures like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson acknowledged the controversies but also underscored the need for candidates to maintain a sense of propriety, especially under public scrutiny. Overall, Hart's experience has ignited broader discussions surrounding the media's responsibility to report on a candidate's personal life, the implications of such reporting on democracy, and how much private conduct should influence a voter’s understanding of a prospective leader. As political norms continue to evolve, this incident serves as a pivotal moment in the relationship between candidates, journalists, and the electorate.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand