Gossip and the Age of Unenlightenment

NBC News, on its program “Expose,” last Sunday alleged that Virginia’s Democratic Sen. Charles Robb had been present at parties where some people used cocaine, and that he had also engaged in a one-night extramarital fling with a former beauty queen. When Robb issued a rebuttal to NBC before the program aired, the story got even more attention than it might have and triggered other stories in the media.

When did these alleged indiscretions occur? The claims about cocaine refer to supposed events in 1983. The brief affair is said to have taken place in 1984, when Robb was his state’s governor. “Expose” offered no conclusive proof to support either of these allegations. So what was the point of airing them now? The show’s producer justifies this venture into prime-time sleaze by saying that Robb “is a man with ambitions for higher office, or so it’s claimed. (A wonderful qualifier, that.) I think it’s the public’s right to find out what the character of this man is like.”

The suggestion, then, is that “Expose” was performing a public service by rehashing an old, previously raised and never proven allegation--that Robb eight years ago witnessed others using cocaine and didn’t interfere--and raising a new and also shakily supported one, that on a single occasion seven years ago he violated his marriage vows. (Robb, by the way, said he did not see cocaine used; he also said he didn’t have sex with the beauty queen). But what exactly gave rise to this impulse to serve the public?

Well, someday Robb might run for President--”or so it’s claimed”--and in that event voters will require information to assess his character. But the trouble with this facile explanation is that it leaves unanswered the key question of why the media chose now to broadcast or publish rumors about Robb’s earlier private life. He has not, after all, said he is running for President. At this point he’s not even a true national figure. The quality of Robb’s character--whether noble or less than that--can hardly be said at this time to be a matter of consuming public concern.

Responsible journalists cringe at the fecklessness of fast and loose juggling of rumors and innuendo. They are embarrassed by self-righteous claims that a plunge into tawdriness has the high purpose of telling the public what it must know to make sound decisions. In the matter of a politician’s character the public of course has a right to know; but to know what, and when? The short answer, we think, is that democracy is served when the electorate is informed of what is relevant to a candidate’s qualifications for office, and when this information is made available at an appropriate time. In our view, the attack on Robb was neither relevant nor timely. What’s at immediate issue isn’t Robb’s morals, but what public purpose is served by gossiping about them.