Sometimes, the Messenger Is More Important Than the Message

Smearing political figures online can be just as damaging as in print, writes Dan Whitfield.

Yesterday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague released a press release in which he provided intimate details of his marriage.  This was in response to internet rumors about an improper relationship between Mr. Hague and a male aide, based on the most flimsy of evidence.

The whole episode is a great shame, particularly because the male aide in question has been forced to resign having done nothing wrong.  It has led some people to question whether blogging, and other forms of journalism based exclusively on the web, are having a negative impact on political discourse in Britain and the world.

This charge is patently absurd.  Whether news is published online, on paper, or on parchment is irrelevant to the quality of the journalism that provided that news.  It is the character of those working in the news media that is important, not the medium through which they work.

At the time Hague was giving the press his statement for example, Vanity Fair published a 10,000-word article on Sarah Palin.  This is the third such piece the magazine has published since the last presidential election.  It is packed with allegations that she has a fierce temper, habitually lies, and fails to adequately raise her children.

In 10,000 words the author fails to cite a single verifiable source, and all his quotes – with the exception of one – come from anonymous sources. 

However you feel about Sarah Palin – for she is certainly a polarizing figure - it is indecent to levy so many charges against her without a scrap of evidence.

William Hague and Sarah Palin have been slimed this week, and it matters not whether the slimers worked in print or online.

Dan Whitfield is a writer living in Washington, DC, specializing in the conservative routes of America’s founding.  Previously Dan worked for the Leadership Institute, America’s largest training organization for conservative activists.

Comments

[Sid]

1.

Spot on, dan.

[Davidmrussell]

2.

We live in troubling times and the damger of sliming is just one of many hazards. It is entirely regrettable that one's reputation can be smeared so easily (via the internet) without any meaningful likelihood of recourse. In those old days of snail mail and hard copy, defamation and libel laws offered a valid means of redress (and a brutish form of bullying for some artful politicians) but they are rapidly becoming passe. One would hope that people could discern the diffference between news and opinion but schools (and higher education institutes, too) fail to adequately educate equip young people with relevant lifeskills to even consider the difference. Sadly there appears to be no easy answer though the issue is so serious it assuredly warrants a wealth of contemplation.