Pooper Scooper: Confusing Gossip with News

The Web was rife today with headlines about Caroline Kennedy's reasons for withdrawing from consideration for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. The Huffington Post showed Kennedy's picture sandwiched between a head that implied nefarious misdeeds might be afoot:

NY Times: Kennedy's Bid Derailed by Housekeeper and Tax Problems

and another head that said:

Time: Ted Kennedy's Inner Circle "Furious" About Caroline's Senate Bid Withdrawal.

The articles were fairly tame, if confusing and confused, accounts of the possible reasons why Kennedy is no longer in the running. The NYT gave its headline's claim a cursory mention: the article said nothing of substance about housekeepers or tax problems. And TIME magazine's story of "fury" was a big yawn.

Later in the day, HuffPo moved the story to its front-page banner, which blared "New York Fiasco," coupled with a timeline that gives the history of Kennedy's interest in the position and the political whisperings about the likelihood of her getting it. Somewhere in all that, an unnamed source was quoted as saying, "reporters are starting to look at her marriage more closely"—but it was left up to your imagination as to what that might mean.

I'm troubled by the coverage, both by the HuffPo and the New York Times. It lacks journalistic precepts of fairness, neutrality or even credibility. The headlines are misleading, if not downright spurious. They are written to attract rubberneckers who are fascinated by possibly glimpsing an American aristocrat's fall from grace.

The stories the headlines reference were mostly unremarkable—mundane, even—except when reporters quoted unnamed sources whose comments are no better than idle speculation. To imply that Kennedy has something to hide about her marriage is not pertinent to this story. Even if there is marital discord, does that have any bearing on this? Hinting at it changes the focus of the story from "Why has Kennedy withdrawn from consideration?" to "Is this rich and famous woman unhappy in love?"

The influence of the entertainment industry on journalistic practices is nothing new. And the Kennedys have long been fodder for both hard and entertainment news, which in this case have been combined, hard and entertainment news in one scandalous story! The HuffPo and the New York Times attempted to reach two different audiences with this story: political junkies who want to know why Kennedy is out of the picture for the Senate seat and who's the likely next candidate, and those who love reading People Magazine's endless coverage of the rich and famous, whose lives are filled with tragedy and epiphany. The media did a disservice to journalistic ethics in the process.

Web-based coverage made this conflation possible. Articles from the New York Times and the New York Post—strange bedfellows, indeed—were quoted in the HuffPo's breathlessly updated timeline. Links to the full articles revealed strangely voyeuristic coverage by even the so-called "serious" publication, whose editors seem to have forgotten what they ever learned about ethical journalistic practices.

Not until I turned on NPR did I find a measured journalism worthy of the name. Reporter Nicholas Confessore (who co-wrote the NYT story on Kennedy) explained to NPR what are the differences between what Kennedy's camp said, and what the New York governor's camp said. The discussion then turned to who are the likely candidates for the Senate seat, and what experience they each would bring to the job. No gossip, no speculation, no gloating. And no compromising of journalistic ethics to broaden the story's appeal.