Media Curmudgeon

« Labor Day | Main | ESPN’s Ombudsman »

September 7, 2007

Coverage of Senator Craig—Why?

The big story in the media in the past week was Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig’s arrest, guilty plea, resignation from the Senate, and, now, un-resignation. How has the media covered this story? Too much.

It seems Craig was first outed by Mike Rogers, who, according to WasingtonPost.com, has “been a feared one-man machine, outing nearly three dozen senior political and congressional staffers, White House aides and, most damagingly, Congress members on his blog” Blogactive. Note I didn’t link to Rogers’ blog because I can’t imagine any of my readers wanting to read it.

Dan Popkey, a reporter and columnist at Craig’s hometown newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, spent eight months looking into long-whispered rumors that Senator Craig was a closet gay, but the paper didn’t publish anything because it could find no corroborating evidence. I suppose the paper undertook the investigation because Craig vehemently denied rumors he cruised rest rooms and was gay, and, more to the point, I think, he was anti-gay and pro family values, which made him look like a hypocrite. Craig had supported constitutional and state amendments banning same-sex marriage, and if he were gay, the thinking goes, voters should know of his hypocrisy, which "For journalists and for voters…is always a hanging crime," says Tobe Berkovitz, interim dean at Boston University's College of Communication, according to WashingtonPost.com.

If hypocrisy is a hanging crime, I want to invest ever penny I have in a company in Washington D.C. that makes hangman’s nooses. In a decade journalism schools don’t graduate enough reporters to make even a slight dent in investigating crimes of hypocrisy. So let’s narrow the search and have them go after something more titillating like Paris Hilton’s newest sex partner, Lindsay Lohan’s newest rehab adventure, runaway brides, or oversexed politicians. No; too much to cover, even for a million reporters. Narrow it to oversexed politicians.

OK, the media and Republicans hit the jackpot with Clinton. It seems as though reporters and editors were kicking themselves for not outing John F. Kennedy as having the most monumental sexual appetite since French Emperor Louis Napoleon, who was said to have had a different woman brought to his chambers every night. He even impregnated the 21-year-old daughter of Baron Haussmann, his friend, the Prefect of the Seine, and the architect of the rebuilding of Paris. All of which tended to upset his wife, Empress Eugenie. So, reporters went after Clinton with glee to make up for not publishing what they all knew about Kennedy. They stoned Bill in the press for years (and some Republicans still are). I guess they never got the message about being innocent themselves before they threw stones at anyone. I guess it proves that reporters don’t pay much attention to the Bible. But we all knew that.

The coverage of the Senator Craig story has been almost as much overkill as with Paris Hilton’s release from jail, but with much less interest on behalf of audiences and readers. Enough already. Stop. Also, the media usually wastes our time with horse-race coverage of politics and politicians—covering strategy instead of issues—but with the Craig story, the media has missed the strategy angle. So, let’s look at the story from a strategic point of view.

Below is a Payoff Matrix similar to ones used in game theory problems and in making strategic decisions. Note that there are three possible sexual orientations, not two as is widely and incorrectly assumed in the media.

Click to see Payoff Matrix

Examine the six options carefully making several unrealistic assumptions: 1) That personality, looks, or hair cuts make no difference, 2) that all elections are honest and all voters can vote, and 3) that “performance” means bringing pork to a state and voting the way the majority of constituents approve of, 4) that party preference has shifted in favor of the Democrats in most northern and some western states, and 5) that a state does not have a large faction of Mormon voters.

As you’ll see from the six options, if you’re a candidate in Republican state and the public knows your sexual orientation, your best strategy to appeal to the largest numbers of voters is show off your straightness and to admit your sexual orientation if you are bisexual or homosexual. If the public doesn’t know your sexual orientation, the best strategy is to bring home the bacon and vote as your constituents expect you to vote.

If you are a Democrat in a Democratic state, admit your sexual orientation no matter if the public knows or not, because it doesn’t matter—you can’t lose.

If you are a Republican in a state that is sick of the war in Iraq, Republican corruption, usurping of power, and invading privacy, and, thus, leaning Democratic, the best strategy is to admit your sexual orientation, bring home the bacon, and vote as your constituents expect you to vote.

But if you’re in a state with a large Mormon voting block, like in Idaho, under no circumstances admit you’re gay. Being a hypocrite is OK, admitting to a misdemeanor is OK, but being gay isn’t.

So Idaho’s Senator Craig’s best strategy is to hire good lawyer to fight the police entrapment, which he has, apologize for his behavior, admit to nothing but hypocrisy and a misdemeanor, and blame the police. The media will pursue the story, but his constituents in Idaho will overlook his transgressions as long as he bashes gays and votes the way the NRA, anti-gun control lobby wants him to. The Democrats won’t go after him because if they start investigating hypocrisy and large, loony sexual appetites, they know they’d open up such an enormous can of their own worms that the media birds of prey would go into another feeding frenzy that would never end. The Republicans will have to forgive Craig, swallow their pride, and take him back because if they don’t, they give up too much power to the disgusting outer-in-chief, Michael Rogers, who is, with superb irony, the modern-day Joseph McCarthy.

After this whole mess passes, the Republicans will come out looking like the bad guys for not sticking up for one of their family. Only Senator Arlen Specter has had the guts to do so. Good for him. But maybe he’s gay? That’ll be the next rumor worthy of close scrutiny by honest, objective, issue-oriented, self-righteous journalists—another feeding frenzy on a meaningless issue.

Finally, the best coverage of the Craig story I’ve seen was by the New York Times when it ran an op-ed piece on September 2, 2007, by Laura M. McDonald titled “America’s Toe-Tapping Menace” that provides some insight into the behavior of men who troll for sex. Here’s what McDonald writes: “What is shocking about Senator Larry Craig’s bathroom arrest is not what he may have been doing tapping his shoe in that stall, but that Minnesotans are still paying policemen to tap back. For almost 40 years most police departments have been aware of something that still escapes the general public: men who troll for sex in public places, gay or “not gay,” are, for the most part, upstanding citizens. Arresting them costs a lot and accomplishes little.”

Covering these arrests in the media accomplishes even less.

Posted by Charles Warner at September 7, 2007 8:41 PM

Comments

Media Curmudgeon at September 8, 2007 10:32 PM writes:

---