Sen. Craig Calls Case a 'Witch Hunt,' but Reporters Say Investigation Was Fair Game

Aug. 30, 2007 — -- Is the pursuit of the story on Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's sexuality a "witch hunt," as Craig called it? Is it muckraking? Is it a violation of his privacy? Or is it just good gumshoe reporting?

"It's not about outing gay people. It's about reporting hypocrisy," said Michael Rogers, the blogger who first reported nearly a year ago that Craig might be gay. Certainly Craig's arrest has raised questions not only about his actions, but also about the tactics of mainstream journalists and bloggers who were investigating the senator.

Defending himself to reporters Tuesday, Craig angrily denounced an investigation by the Idaho Statesman into his sexuality and said the probe was to blame for his decision to plead guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct.

"Without a shred of truth or evidence to the contrary, the Statesman has engaged in this witch hunt," a defiant Craig said. "In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis, because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman's investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho."

Most reporters and editors would agree that investigating a crime committed by a public figure is completely justified. But in the case of Craig and the Statesman, the inquiry occurred before there was any proof of wrongdoing.

After Rogers posted his blog entry, the Statesman launched a five-month investigation into whether Craig had solicited or engaged in sex with other men. It turned up some men who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Craig, but they turned out to be either not credible or would not allow their name to be printed for the story. The Statesman did not print its findings until this week, once the news broke that Craig had been arrested.

Some reporters and people who study journalism argue that an investigation into a politician's sexuality can be ethical because it pertains directly to policy questions involving everything from religion to gay marriage. Indeed, Craig was an opponent of gay marriage and a vocal advocate of the Republican Party's conservative family values agenda.

The newspaper's managing editor, Bill Manny, defended the investigation and the decision to withhold the story. In a statement today, Manny said the paper had "followed leads and asked questions. We worked hard and behaved responsibly, not publishing a story until it was ready. We didn't print anything until the senator pleaded guilty."

"I think it's fair game because they're asking him about his honesty. He's married," said Kelly McBride, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, a school and resource center for journalists. "When you drive through Idaho during one of his campaigns, you would see photos of his family on billboards and in television commercials," McBride said.

But she concedes there is at least one significant cost of examining public figures in such an intense way.

"There's a certain level of scrutiny that comes with political life now that sends some very, very good people for the door," McBride said. "I worry that as a society we have a hard time discerning how certain moral choices impact an individual's ability to govern."

The key, said Joe Strupp, a senior editor for the trade journal Editor & Publisher, is judging each situation on its merits and judiciously deciding what merits printing or not.

"We all hear rumors. If you hear rumors, you track it down," Strupp said. "When he pled guilty to a related charge, I think they found that that was enough to go ahead. I don't know if that would've been enough for another editor."

If Craig called the investigation that was never published a "witch hunt," he may be even less pleased with what will be, for many news outlets both mainstream and in the blogosphere, the next stage in this story: trying to find and confirm stories from people who claim to have had sex or have been propositioned by the senator from Idaho.

Dan Okrent, a former public editor of The New York Times, said news organizations that publish or broadcast anonymous accusations against Craig are simply irresponsible, and, in effect, enabling cowards.

"If you're not willing to put your name to it, then you shouldn't be making the accusation," Okrent said. While he praised the Statesman's decision to initially withhold the story and then print it after Craig was arrested, he said the paper's use of anonymous accusations against Craig was disconcerting.

But Rogers, whose blog is dedicated to outing closeted politicians, defends his use of sources, saying a lot of important news would never come to light without them.

"This is how journalism works," Rogers said, referencing past stories that relied on anonymity including Watergate and the sex scandal that brought down Republican Florida Rep. Mark Foley.

"The New York Times every day runs pieces that say 'according to anonymous White House sources,'" he said.