A Dialogue About The Controversy Over President Clinton’s Alleged Relationship with a Former Aide

Bob: So what do you think is going to be the outcome of all of these accusations about Bill Clinton’s sex life? Do you think he’ll be impeached?

Sue: Well, I think the whole thing is incredibly disgusting. I mean the way the media has been rubbing our noses in this whole thing. Who cares about it?

Bob: Hold on there. First of all, obviously lots of people care about it. And why shouldn’t they--he’s the president, after all. We have a right to expect our president to act in a decent manner. Second of all, the media is just doing its job. Don’t you think it’s wrong for reporters to be holding back information that they have, just because it might be considered indecent and unseemly? If they did, we’d be hearing that the liberal press is in league with the president, hushing up his peccadilloes.

Sue: OK, you’ve got a point about the press. Obviously, this is news and it needs to be reported to some extent. But they’re going way beyond that. I have a friend at Lewis & Clark--you know, that’s where Lewinsky, the aide, went to college--and the place has just been swarming with reporters. They’ve been asking anyone they can find what they know about this woman, what she was like, if she ever had any relationships with her professors, if she was a truthful person, and on and on. And what’s the point? What do we need that kind of information for? We’re not a judge or a jury, and she’s not on trial. Even if she did do something that she shouldn’t have with the president, is that a reason to have her whole life exposed to the whole world? I shudder to think what I would look like under that kind of scrutiny.

Bob: OK, we agree on one thing there! No, seriously, I hear what you’re saying. But I just think that it’s a dangerous thing when you start asking journalists to censor themselves. I think we’ve got to expect our journalists do be as stubborn, as creative, as persevering as they can be. It’s like lawyers. I know that lawyers have a bad rep today, especially when they’re defending obvious sleazeballs and doing whatever they can to get them off. I disagree with that. Once a lawyer has taken on a case, she has got to give it her all to win it; she owes that to the client. If the prosecution’s case isn’t strong enough to handle that, well, so be it. Can you imagine being charged with something and finding out that your lawyer hasn’t been as aggressive as he could have been in winning your case? I see these situations as parallel. When you employ a professional, you need to feel that they are doing their best.

Sue: I think we’re getting at some basic questions about what the role of the press is and ought to be in this country. I agree that reporters should do the best job that they can in achieving the mission of their profession, but I don’t think we’re clear on just what that mission is. Is it simply to dig up as much dirt as possible, to make lurid headlines that will sell papers? Is it to do the work that should be done by the police? OK, if the police are not doing their job, I can understand that. But here you’ve got a case where the reporters’ goal is to beat out the detectives so they can get a scoop. And the reality is, that whatever they turn up will probably be inadmissible as evidence in any trial, so even if there was ultimately a government case against Clinton, the reporters are jeopardizing it by all their snooping and prying. Why do we have to hear every rumor, every piece of gossip? Why can’t the press--or the public--just be patient?

Bob: Well, that is the question, isn’t it? But I think you’ve answered it yourself. Obviously, we are a nation of voyeurs and we want to know these things. Especially when they’re sexual and nasty. Part of us is ashamed and even outraged by this curiosity, but it’s there. We want to find out. And the media feeds into that. Maybe it’s a sad reality, but it is reality. Because each news organization knows that if they don’t get the story, someone else will. It’s the law of the marketplace--free competition. But let’s get off this media thing and remember that we’re not talking about just anyone, we’re talking about the President of the United States. Excuse me, but I do think that if the guy is having extramarital sex with a girl in the Oval Office of the White House and then lying about it, well that IS our business. It shows such incredibly bad judgment that it makes you wonder about this guy’s qualifications to be president.

Sue: Hold on just one eensy-weensy moment. First of all, you’re assuming that he did those things, which has not been proven.

Bob: Would it surprise you if it turned out that he had?

Sue: I’m afraid that it wouldn’t, given his record. But still, that’s no reason to jump to conclusions. What’s the big hurry?

Bob: I just would hate to see Clinton weasel out of this one the way he’s weaseled out of everything before. The guy is a weasel.

Sue: Ahem. Remember that name-calling is the last resort of a desperate man. Anyway, I will concede that Clinton is not perfect. We knew that when we elected him. We knew that when we RE-elected him. If you’re afraid of him exercising bad judgment as president, well, he’s been president for nearly six years now. Has he done anything stupid during that time? I don’t mean something that you might disagree with, but something stupid?

Bob: He has lied repeatedly to the American people, and that’s inexcusable.

WR122 Dembrow