Earlier this week, I wrote about media coverage surrounding the “racy emails” that led to Des Moines, IA, school superintendent Nancy Sebring’s resignation. Sebring’s emails—I’d classify them as “really really embarrassing” before I’d call them “racy”—received attention on the Web from outlets around the world. They all gleefully cast her as their very own 50 Shades of Grey character.
A concerned CJR reader, Martha, commented that we were ignoring a more important racy email story. A Wall Street Journal reporter resigned on Tuesday after a flirty email exchanges with a US official—a source at the time, now her husband—were made available on the Internet. Sigh.
We get that sex sells, but the press would be well served by some soul searching on how much is too much—and how to report these stories with a little humanity. Some things are just not the public’s business.
Gina Chon, the Journal reporter, made an obvious ethical lapse in 2008 when she entered into a relationship Brett McGurk, a US official in Iraq, the country she was covering and failed to disclose it. She made another, arguably bigger one when she showed him her stories before they were published.
It was dumb, dumb, dumb for Chon and especially McGurk (at .gov) to send so many emails with so many cringeworthy references to ‘blue balls’ from their work accounts—the equivalent of sending booty calls out on company letterhead.
But that was in 2008, and they’re married now. It’s really something that, because of McGurk’s pending ambassadorship, the inappropriate BlackBerry exchanges that got their courtship started back in 2008 are public and professionally catastrophic for Chon and McGurk today. For what it’s worth, The Wall Street Journal has said that Chon’s relationship did not affect her reporting. How much about this does the public really need to know?
I argued the same in the Sebring case. It’s good, watchdog journalism to expose and explain the real reason for a sudden resignation of a public official, but it’s invasive and unnecessary to publish pages of the official’s personal emails.
Maybe we are all destined to one day resign over emails —this feels a little like the early days of the Napster crackdown—but let’s hope the public figures out personal email accounts and the press figures out how to report these cases with some restraint before that happens.
You're missing the bigger picture regarding Gina Chon & Brett McGurk.
The e-mails raise questions about his fitness for the ambassadorship and whether he may have traded access to sensitive information for sexual favors.
McGurk, who was married at the time, dangled unprecedented access and information before Chon in return for a series of increasingly intimate sexual encounters.
The Wall Street Journal has said that Chon’s relationship did not affect her reporting but really, they're saving face. She clearly violated company policy.
Their relationship began during the 2008 negotiations over the U.S.-Iraq security agreement—the sensitive details of which McGurk often hinted at over his unclassified exchanges with Chon. Plus, the e-mails, while distasteful, clearly show that McGurk is not qualified for the post he wanted.
#1 Posted by Corinne, CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 03:18 PM
Just so long as the rest of us don't find out, it is fine for the press and the govt to conspire against the rest of us.
Sounds about right.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 11:22 PM
Who covers the lies and on-the-job transgressions of the media?
As a proud graduate and national award-winning writer of UN-L's College of Journalism and Mass Communications and the 2010 Democratic candidate for Congress in Nebraska's 1st District, I have a unique perspective on “the press” given that I’ve been on both sides of the coverage aisle. In 2010, I unearthed "journalism malpractice" by Omaha World-Herald (OWH) writers/editors.
Erika, I invite you to "cover" that. Better yet, I invite the Des Moines Register.
The OWH's "journalism malpractice" was far more egregious than anything Nancy Sebring did. The OWH manipulated a federal election via lies and did the opposite of what the OWH executed in the Sebring case: unprecedented political "coverage" blackouts of who:
Interestingly enough; two women: Rebekah Davis & Ivy Harper.
Second, I know of a long-running "affair" between two Lincoln Journal Star (LJS) staffers that caused months and months of low moral and turmoil among LJS employees; an affair that affected writing and coverage for journalists; lots more than mere emails. Given the immense "power of the press," why is the media the only American institution given a pass with respect to on-the-job "transgressions?"
Wouldn’t it be fair if we could file Nebraska Open Records Requests for Emails of the LJS & the OWH given that they have as much or more “power” than those they cover because the media gets to determine the “fates” of their “subjects?”
Let's face it, folks, the Fourth Estate - aka Journalism - is the Fourth Branch of Government. Why do "Journalists" get to accuse but point their innocent right forefingers in their cheeks and say like little Pollyannas, "You can't come after us. We're just 'recorders' not elected officials so nobody can do to us what we do to others."
This bears repeating: inquiring minds would like to know who "covers" those who "cover" others? So uber-competitively as to be monstrous; and to border on the misogynistic in the OWH’s case.
Because, ultimately, that's what this boils down to and Ms. Fry's analysis reveals it:
A fierce, alpha-dog fight - who cares about the (female) humans being ripped apart in the process - between the scoop-at-all-costs Men in Suits who "run" both papers.
Notice the names of the accusers: Jonathon Braden, Mike Reilly,OWH executive editor, Rick Green, the Register’s editor and vice president of news, C. David Kotok, OWH managing editor,
Notice the names of the victims: Nancy Sebring, “Nina Rasmusson,“ Jennifer Kreashko, Rebekah Davis, and Ivy Harper.
Oh, and let’s not forget the OWH’s premier role in removing from office NU’s only female Chancellor Nancy Belck for doing what the Big Boys do as a matter of course.
I’ve got incontrovertible evidence that other NU Chancellors have lied. Would you like to give me a call Mr. Mike Reilly? I didn’t think so. After all, there are unwritten rules in the Cornhusker Boys Club.
Bottom line: there’s a clear pattern at the OWH. The question is: OWH, can you handle the Truth turned right back at you.
#3 Posted by Ivy Harper, CJR on Mon 18 Jun 2012 at 01:37 PM