Press: Back Off Bristol Palin!
When an individual throws him or herself into the glare of publicity by standing for public office, does the candidate drag the members of their family along with them? And should the press feel obligated to reveal prior or current indiscretions of the family members as they do the candidate?
There are several baseline questions that need to be addressed before answering either of these very troublesome questions: Has the candidate made his/her relationship with their family an issue in the campaign? Has the family member injected himself/herself into the campaign? What is the nature of the indiscretion? How old is the family member? Does the family member's act (or omission) shed any helpful light on the character of the candidate?
Let's look at the situation of Bristol Palin, five-months-pregnant, unmarried, 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate-in-waiting, Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. The Palin camp announced the pregnancy in an effort to debunk rumors that cropped up in the blogosphere that the candidate's five-month-old son had actually been born to her daughter, Bristol, not to her.
With respect to the first question -- has the candidate made her relationship with her family an issue in the campaign -- the answer is a qualified yes. While Palin has not really been a candidate long enough (she was anointed Friday) to have made much of anything an issue in the campaign yet, her "family values" positions are certainly among the principal reasons she was chosen by McCain. In fact in the speech announcing her selection, he called her emblematic of "the hopes and the values of working people." So, an editor could make an argument that the "family values" issue makes a daughter's teen pregnancy fair game in a presidential race.
Has the family member injected herself into the campaign? Absolutely not. Aside from a quick photo shot of Bristol, alongside her brother and sisters on the platform on Friday, I have not heard a word she's uttered in support of her mother, McCain, the Republican platform or, for that matter, any public issue.
What is the nature of the indiscretion? A teen pregnancy out-of-wedlock. I don't think this clears the bar for press exposure. In 2001, the 19-year-old Bush girls, Barbara and Jenna, received misdemeanor citations from the Austin, TX police for underage drinking. There were those at the time who felt it was unfair for the press to inquire about and probe the incident and the Bushes' reaction. When law enforcement gets involved and there is a public record, the incident is fair game. When Andrew Giuliani put his name on a lawsuit against Duke University and filed suit, that is fair game for reporting. When a 17-year-old girl gets herself pregnant, I believe the press ought to stand down unless there's an unusually good justification for publishing.
How old is the family member? 17. Would any parent out there want to be judged as fit or unfit for their job on the basis of the nutty or irresponsible stuff our kids do? Even the proudest of parents knows that we're just a hair's breadth away from potentially disastrous consequences -- particularly with teenagers. This is not Billy Carter, or some other wacky adult relative who should be held responsible for his actions -- this is a near-child, who made a stupid mistake and now will live with it. It is very different than a responsible adult relative who screws up and embarrasses the candidate (and almost always knows that they're going to).
And finally, does the family member's conduct shed any light on the fitness of the candidate to hold office or on the candidate's morals, principles or values? The answer here is no. I am sure that in the days and weeks ahead there will be many things we learn about Sarah Palin that will make us acutely perplexed as to why John McCain thought she was the best possible option to be his second-in-command, but having a pregnant teenage daughter will definitely not be on the list. There are those that argue that having a teenage daughter get pregnant may be some reflection of her mothering skills, her attentiveness, her insight into her own family. I don't buy it. And even were that so, it would not provide any window on her suitability for the office of vice president; it would only be a measure of her mothering.
The toughest ethical questions faced by journalists involve when to involuntarily strip subjects of their privacy over matters they do not want disclosed. Since privacy is one of the most cherished values in a civilized society, we in the press need to be absolutely sure that when we do it, we have some higher ethical justification. In this case, there was none.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, this is about a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases and therefore none of our business.
Now her mother is still fair game for other matters...
"Yes, this is about a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases and therefore none of our business"
Not true. The Republican party to which this young lady's mother is a part of has for decades decided in their great wisdom to make just these such things their business. They have decided to cut off funding for all but abstinence training.
The truth is, it's none of the Republican Party's business what a woman decides to do with her body.
Ms. Palin accepted this run and has put her entire family front row center for the (goon squad) media to find whatever they can.
New Republican platform addition: "Do as WE say, not as WE or OUR families do".
Also why in the world didn't the girl just stay home? She's pregnant an certainly all of the stress put upon her is very unhealthy. She can thank her mom for this.
This is not about her daughter this is about Sarah Palin telling me that my 17 year old daughter and 18 year old son do not have the right to have sexual education as a subject at their schools. This is about Sarah Palin telling my children they need to use abstinence. This is about Sarah Palin giving my children the message that using contraception is against God's will. This is about me being extremely happy that it is not my 18 year old son being pushed into a kids marriage he can not financially provide for and emotionally step up to to save his future mother in law's political career. This is about me, as a mother of teenagers, being pissed off with Sarah Palin. Who does she think she is to preach to other teenagers than her own about abstinence and than end up with a pregnant daughter. What a hypocrite.
Why the rest of the country and all of the pundits can't see the situation the way you described it above is entirely beyond me.
Bristol and Levi have been forced into national attention by Sarah Palin's candidacy. If such a big deal had not been made by the endorsement of Sarah Palin by James Dobson and Tony Perkins as an example of Christian family values, Bristol and Levi wouldn't be in this celebrity position. The McCain has specifically brought the issue of abortion, Roe v Wade, clinics for education, all into the center of the campaign with the selection of Sarah Palin, specifically for her views. This is the test of her and their views. Evangelicals have be chomping at the bit ever since Roe v Wade to reverse the Supreme Court decision. This is a showdown election over Roe v Wade and future appointments to the Supreme Court to overthrow a woman's right to choose. It will also dictate how we proceed, by placing blame on a woman for a sexual encounter, with or without her permission, or go back to remote hotel and dark alley abortions where mostly the woman dies. The real issue is teen sex and how to best support our children during these emotionally filled years. It is obvious, that abstinance, with or with education is not the answer and women still need Roe v Wade.
Apparently when Sarah Palin was questioned by John McCain's so-called vetters about this, she said she would "have a conversation with her daughter." Maybe she should have had a different conversation say, oh, at least six months ago. But, no, sex education is not something that she advocates in schools but, clearly, she abdicated that responsibility as a parent as well. This "stick you head in the sand" method of parenting is irresponsible and, quite frankly, does reflect poorly on her judgment. If she turns a blind eye on this issue, what will she do when she is confronted with a more substantial issue?
I will not roll over and play dead and turn the other cheek when the opposition Repugs are like the HUNs To do so is utter foolishness. I intend to take this battle back to the Repugs with all guns blazing and bring it right into their living rooms and bedrooms. At least on this one issue.....
In this battle for CHOICE control...
Show the public just what legislation that regulates abortion, birth control, etc. or (make no mistake about it because this is the ultimate aim of the Right-to Life Religionists) Birth Control Pills, IUD's or other Contraceptive methods.
BRING IT ON. It is time to show Women and Men just exactly what it is like to have your Uterus regulated by Gov't fiat,
Absolutely. The day the GOP decided that women's uteri were public, not private parts, they sealed their own fate.
Excuse me. Didn't the filthy repugs attack Clinton's wife and daughter, Relentlessly, for years? I recall one commentator suggesting Chelsea be eliminated in some way so she wouldn't pass on Clinton genes. He should have been arrested but he wasn't even reprmanded.
Our total wimpiness as a party is why we always lose, including gutless "I will never impeach" Pelosi. Lying us into a war that cost trillions and four thousand dead is not worthy of impeachment, but Clinto's pecadillow was? What in hell is wrong with the gutless, spineless Deadocrats? Why can't they fight. Let these two nutjobs get into office and we will have a Depression, more war, more death and a wrecked environment. But we're going toplay Nice?
Nuts. The Democrats have turned into gutless wonders. They're not worth spit.
It isn't the press that has dragged Bristol Palin's teen pregnancy into the public limelight; it was her mother's decision to run for Vice President that did that. Once she accepted McCain's offer, it was a 100 % certainty that this story would become public. A parent who would expose her pregnant 17 year old daughter to national publicity and late night talk show jokes is beneath contempt. The fact that Sarah Palin was willing to publicly humiliate her daughter throughout the United States speaks volumes about her character.
Bristol Palin did not "get herself pregnant." Levi Johnston GOT her pregnant! Please use more care with your language.
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston got Bristol Palin pregnant.
No. They got themselves pregnant. It takes to tango. Both will be responsible for this child for the rest of its life.
"And finally, does the family member's conduct shed any light on the fitness of the candidate to hold office or on the candidate's morals, principles or values? The answer here is no."
I think that "No." should be qualified with "Well, unless the children were routinely shunted out of the way of Mommy's and Daddy's careers."
Easily learned, I suppose...
And how often.
Pregnancy is not , as the author puts it “stupid mistake” . It can have very serious consequences. Right now women have options, options they would not have if people like Palin and McCain had their way. It is important to point that out. No one is attacking the kid, if anything people are pointing out the kid had choices, choices she, and other girls, would not have if her mom had her way. We are talking about right to privacy, right to chose without government’s interference. This is not personal, it is about policy. See if this gets posted.
imho, Bristol's choices are off the table. her privacy should be inviolate.
her mother's privacy, otoh, is not. she voluntarily chose to sacrifice her children for the sake of her own ambitions. therefore, her judgment in this matter is open for debate, as far as I can see--along with her choice to keep birth control away from her daughter in the first place.
and no, I don't see that as Bristol's choice. she's only 17 years old. while, technically, she is of an age to make that decision herself, most of us were not prepared, at that age, to go against the wishes of our parents.
so, I believe the press has the right to go after Sarah but leave Bristol alone. if the one cannot be done without dragging Bristol into the discussion -- leave it alone.
there will be plenty to go after Sarah with without putting Bristol through the wringer.
Hey! Why did SARAH Palin bring her daughter into it by saying she's 5 months pregnant?
The question was if PALIN had been pregnant (since no one at the state house ever knew about it into her 7th month.)
SHE chose to respond by outting Bristol as being pregnant NOW.
This is a VERY strange response for a mother. Why didn't she just have her ob/gyn hold a press conference and put all the rumors to rest?
Instead she answered a rumor with an invasion of her daughter's privacy (whether true or false, we don't know).
This is PALIN's poor judgment to bring Bristol into the mix. No one else's.
When a "family values" politician campaigns on the social issues he or she opens themselves for criticism if they or someone in their family does not meet that incredibly high bar. It is a ridiculous bar to begin with but we did not set it that high. Mrs. Palin did. Her husband did. The social conservative set did.
Does the daughter deserve to be drug over the coals? Of course not.
But the story is not about the daughter. It is about the parent, the mother who is becoming a poster person of the family values set who believe in the traditional roles for the man and the woman. This is about a true believer of abstinence methods whose daughter became pregnant who accepted the invitation to become this nation's VP. This issue is about Mrs. Palin's decision making abilities as a parent since her political resume is so thin.
This issue calls into both the priorities on the Palin home front which may affect her abilities if she becomes president and also calls into question McCain's decision making abilities.
And this is about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Every time one of their own fails to meet the "family values" standard they look for excuses or even worse they look for equal stories on the Dem side to drag those families through the mud in an attempt to distract from the fact that they can not meet their own expectations and goals for their families.
the news media had no problem sticking it to Edwards even when it had no relevence just for paper selling effect. This case the kids should be left out but her policy of trying to get sex ed removed from the schools and teaching abestence only should be made an example. If nothing else she should be made to explain why absenence only worked her her case.
No one attacked Bristol Palin. What they really mean is, "Don't attack Sarah Palin using her daughter, Bristol." Now, in most instances, I would consider that a fair statement.
Except Sarah Palin is a proponent of abstinence-only sex education who stripped away 20% of the funding for a government teen pregnancy support organization. That makes Bristol the ULTIMATE weapon against Sarah Palin's double-standard ignorance, even if the spotlight grows especially hot while she's under it.
Mark Foley created a law which he was ultimately prosecuted for. Clarity is panacea for hypocrisy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
