It is not clear why the Star chose to make this a story. The Star has been given lead after lead about legitimate issues in the Indianapolis, such as the revolving door, influence peddling, pay-to-play insider dealing, and the Star publishes nothing. Yet when it comes to a salacious rendezvous a legislator supposedly set up with a young man, it is front page news?
Even then, it's not like Hinkle's alleged rendezvous is the only one involving our politicians. Anyone who has been around government and, in particular the legislature, knows rumors of politicians having affairs with lobbyists, staffers and setting up clandestine sex meetings for casual sexual encounters are a constant topic of conversation. These stories are often provided to media outlets, undoubtedly with some level of proof, and are almost always discarded as personal matters that shouldn't be part of the public debate. Yet when it came to Rep. Hinkle, the Star's editors for some reason chose to not only to cover the story, but to make it front page news.
Where do you draw the line between what you cover as a reporter or an editor, and what you and disregard as a personal matter? I don't believe that a politician should all right to privacy once elected to office. We need to have good people serving in office and if you don't allow those people to have a private life, many may choose to forgo public service.
While I don't believe in the anything is fair game philosophy of news coverage, I"m also not sure where you draw the line. What if the politician is married and having an affair? Is that newsworthy? What if the affair is with a staffer? What if the affair is with a lobbyist? What if is a single politician emailing naked pictures of himself to a woman across the country? What if it is a married politician preaching family values on the stump, while having assorted affairs?
When I saw the Hinkle story, I thought someone had put the National Enquirer in my newspaper box. I'm still not sure it's a story and I hate to see it crowd out the sorts of things the Star should be covering. As far as hypocrisy as a justification for the coverage or at least the front page placement, as I recall Rep. Hinkle does not wear religion on his sleeve like a lot of politicians and I don't remember him constantly pushing "family values."
As far as news coverage of the alleged rendezvous, I have to wonder if the man's stepsister shopped the story to the television stations in town and they refused to cover the story, while the Star, repeatedly scooped over by those stations, decided to print it knowing it would sell papers. I'm betting that is exactly what happened.
When does private behavior by a politician become something the media should cover? I wish I could think of bright line rules, but I can't. I can only speak for myself and if the same story landed in my lap as a blogger, I wouldn't have published it regardless of which politician was skewered by the coverage. So much for bloggers having a lower standard than the mainstream media when it comes to what they will write about.
I also know what I care about and don't care about. For example, I couldn't care less what a politician's sexual orientation is. What I care about is public honesty and integrity, someone who stands up for taxpayers and is not in public service as a way of making themselves and their friends rich. I've always liked Phil Hinkle because he is outspoken about defending the taxpayer, believes in public service, and is not a sell-out like so many Indianapolis Republicans are. If Rep. Hinkle resigns over this and is replaced by a hand-picked choice of Republican County Chairman Kyle Walker and other insiders, all of who want reform in the local GOP will suffer.
If someone knows where the media should draw lines on covering a politician's private life, I'd love to hear the feedback. This is one of the issues, and there aren't many, I have to profess I don't know the answer.
Note: I'll write more about the Hinkle matter later.