Answer 4 of these questions in depth: Article is in an attachment included.
A. Calderone decides to make phone calls for a possible media story on July 22, 2008, a few hours after the Enquirer runs a story on its website about Senator John Edward’s late‐night visit to Hunter. However, news of an affair between Edwards and an employee had been circulating since TN: News or Rumor? _______________________________________________________ CSJ‐08‐0018.3PO 4 October.
Is Calderone too slow coming to the story, especially since it has long been fodder for other political and media watchers, including Slate’s Jack Shafer and Politico’s own Ben Smith?
B. By the end of July 22, Calderone feels he has enough material for a piece that contrasts the mainstream media’s cool response to the Edwards story with the intense scrutiny of blogs and the National Enquirer. But he worries that a media story is a “sort of weasel way around the unpleasant fact that you can’t actually confirm the rumors yourself.” Do you agree that merely parsing coverage of the rumor without confirming it as fact is unacceptable? Or is it enough, especially for a political media reporter like Calderone, to cover the controversy as a story in itself?
d. Is a political figure’s marital infidelity newsworthy? Does it say much about personal character or leadership ability? Many admired historical figures had personal lives that today would be judged unacceptable. Does unconventional personal behavior have any bearing on performance as a public servant? If not, why is an affair a matter of national news?
e. By July 2008, Edwards is no longer a presidential candidate nor is he an elected official. Is his alleged infidelity a valid political story nonetheless? Or should his private life be off limits for media scrutiny? Where is the line between private citizen and public figure? Can a figure like a presidential candidate ever truly return to private life?
f. The Edwards camp issues a series of increasingly vague denials that fail to address the circumstances surrounding the missing webisodes and Edwards’ visit to the Beverly Hills hotel. Edwards himself deems the Enquirer’s story “tabloid trash.” How should Calderone handle such comments, which scorn the allegations and the investigators but do not specifically rebut the charges, nor clear up the mysteries surrounding the story? How should reporters handle noncooperative subjects and outright denials by principal characters in a story? When is it ethical to run a news item that is declared untrue by the people at the heart of the article? Is it enough to include their denials within the body of the story?