home

Why is Gavin Newsom's Affair Considered Newsworthy?

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:32:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I agree with Arianna. Why is the national news covering San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's extra-marital affair with his campaign manager's wife? If you haven't read about it yet, the wife told her husband who confronted Newsom before quitting. Newsom held a press conference to confirm the rumor and apologize. It made the round of cable news shows as well as the national media.

And now conservatives are predicting that Newsom's chances for higher office have been dashed. By that logic, Rudy Giuliani wouldn't have formed an exploratory committee for President and Newt Gingrich wouldn't say he's draftable for the presidential nomination.

But the real point is that except for those who are family values hypocrites, the media should stay out of politicians' bedrooms. It's nobody's business but their own.

< Holding Bloggers Accountable Through Laws | Late Nite for Scooter Libby: Everybody Knows >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why is Gavin Newsom's Affair Considered Newsworthy? | 19 comments (19 topical)
    I agree... (none / 0) (#1)
    by HK on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:38:37 AM EST
    Staying out of politician's bedrooms is certainly pretty high on my list of priorities for life...

    Trump (none / 0) (#2)
    by aahpat on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:30:01 AM EST
    Prurience trumps policy in American politics.

    Mayor Gavin must be trying to move forward some vital to the public interest policy right now to have the media so obsessed with the total distraction of where his penis is pointing.

    well yeah, but.......................... (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:55:18 AM EST
    the media should stay out of politicians' bedrooms. It's nobody's business but their own.

    when politicians hold news conferences, to announce their extra-marital affairs, they open the door, as it were. don't blame the news media for walking on in.

    MSM and news judgment... (none / 0) (#4)
    by RAM on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:47:38 AM EST
    The Newsom thing was only one extremely irritating example of MSM "news" judgment this past week.

    ABC's flagship evening news program spent several valuable minutes early last week covering the death of a "brave" race horse. They gave scant coverage to the Libby trial that dribbled off to none at all.

    On Friday morning CNN gave blanket coverage for at least an hour--I finally quit watching in disgust--to a tornado that struck Florida, chiefly as near as I could tell, because the morning weatherman's parents live in the area where the storm struck.

    Meanwhile, Iraqis seem to have gotten their hands on antiaircraft heavy machine guns capable of shooting down heavily armored Apache gunship helicopters; the Libby trial testimony suggests the FBI couldn't even get Irving to tell them his real name; the presidential vice-president seems to have been running an op to out an undercover CIA agent; and the administration's own NIE states Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket.

    The thing is, the MSM electronic media has gradually changed from news gathering to entertainment to the detriment of the nation. But they keep insisting the entertainment they're providing is really news, further blurring the lines between what's news and what isn't.

    In order for democracy to work, voters have to be informed. The MSM has made the decision to stop providing that basic and necessary information.

    Oh, cone on (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:06:18 AM EST
      I you are not interested, don't read about it and certainaly don't post about it.

      Perhaps more of a question than  why such things are considered newsoworthy is why some  people think their opinion that such affairs are not newsworthy is newsworthy. Is it anything more than posturing as above it all compared to the great unwashed? I don't think so, but that posturing is even more thransparent whern the "complaint" about one politicians affair being publicized includes references to other politician's affair. Don't you think?

      The obvious answer to why iy is considered newsworthy is that some significant portion of the consumers of news find it interesting. As for why some people find other folks' love lives interesting, I'd say because they are human. That's why you see a lot more novels, including important ones, about affairs of the heart than about affairs of state.

     

    Wet Blanket (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    I you are not interested, don't read about it and certainaly don't post about it.
    Thanks dad, but this is not a news site. It is a site where we discuss, among other things, the way information is disseminated and why .  A bit of deconstruction at work, no?.
    Perhaps more of a question than  why such things are considered newsoworthy is why some  people think their opinion that such affairs are not newsworthy is newsworthy.

    Sounds like it is time for you to start your own blog.

    ....posturing is even more thransparent whern the "complaint"....

    A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    I bet that you failed poststructuralism 101. Deconstructionist my a$$. Here is a refresher:


    Subjects relevant to deconstruction include the philosophy of meaning in Western thought, and the ways that meaning is constructed by Western writers, texts, and readers and understood by readers

    Wikipedia

    Parent

    It's IRONY. son... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:20:16 AM EST
      I guess  everyone else has figured it out, but you obviously haven't. My use of "deconstructionist" is meant to be an ironic joke because I consider the school absurd nihilism hiding behing faux intellectualism.

      Get it now?

    Parent

    Fake intellectualism?? (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:27:57 PM EST
    Probably what they said about Kant at the time. And then there is poor Galileo.

    Obviously you prefer to look back cause the view from the front seat is way too scary.

    Parent

    Why cover (none / 0) (#6)
    by wlgriffi on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    "Why is the national news covering San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's extra-marital affair with his campaign manager's wife?"

    Why? 1.) Why to divert attention away from the Libby trial news about how the White House was able to use the so-called press,and

    2.) To divert attention away from Guliani's affairs during his ascendency as a "media" darling.

    If you think you are going to get "news" coverage from the tv media,think again. Fluff is the agenda. Why do you think Tim--meh spent most of last weeks MTP with Huckabee a dark horse going nowhere?  

    What happened? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:25:20 PM EST

    Getting sex from a subordinate female at work used to be considered an abuse of a position of power.  Did that change?

    Abdul (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:21:53 PM EST
    Yes... It is called the Democratic Politican Exception...

    Seriously folks. In my day doing your secretary was considered an offence subject to for cause dismissal.

    Parent

    In your day..... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    if you are as old as I think you are Jim, bonking your secretary was semi-common practice....like the 3 martini lunch.

    I thought it was his campaign manager's wife, I didn't know she herself worked for him.  Regardless, who people copulate with is none of my business.  I'd rather a competent, yet philandering mayor than a incompetent monogamous one.

    Parent

    Kdog (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    Sir, you insult me.

    I never had less that five mortoonies..

    And I retired in '03, long past the women's rights push... which I supported..

    And yes, having sex with your secretary was very bad for your long term employment..

     

    I'd rather a competent, yet philandering mayor than a incompetent monogamous one.

    You can have a competent mayor who doesn't screw his employees.

    The reason for management not wanting the boss doing his employees is more because it can create real morale problems and hurt the bottom line, not to mention legal challenges over advancement, etc., than any so-called "moral" reason.

    So if the citizens of Baghdad West, as a famous SF columnist whose name I can't remember called it, aren't bothered, I sure don't care. But let's don't pretend that it can't cause some performance problems.

    Parent

    No insult intended..... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:29:46 AM EST
    I over guess-timated your age.  I was thinking of secretarial affairs in the 1950's and early 60's being quite common...less so after the women's lib movement of the late 60's and 70's.

    Sure, we'd all love perfect candidates who are supremely intelligent and of flawless moral character and who help old ladies cross the street.  Yet, these people hardly exist at all much less run for office.  Everybody has got flaws...when it comes to political leaders I'd rather the flaws be in the bedroom than in the job performance.

    For example, Rudy has flawed moral characther, and he was a police-state mayor.  I don't dislike him cuz he cheated on and dumped his wife....it was the job performance I judged him on.

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    Uh, the insult was over the number of mortoonies, not my age...

    ;-)

    The lecherous leader who is very smart is a tempting argument, and my comment stands. You can have both.

    Having said that, I don't personally care what Newsome (or Clinon) did. Their punishment will come from the harm they see they have done to their friends and families. But the voters certainly have a right to know, and to factor that into their voting decision.

    On another level, even before women's rights became an issue, I wouldn't stand for affairs within the group I ran for one simple reason. Sooner or later there were always additional problems. Divorces have a way of causing those involved to be defocused and performing at less than the level they are being paid for. I wasn't going to let one person's actions hurt the group.

    BTW - Same for drinking. Getting smashed at lunch was definitely NOT the thing to do. And yes, it did happen, but it was more industry specific than general. In my experience it was widely tolerated in utilities and government, not in manufacturing and engineering. Today there is almost a zero tolerance for all industries.

    Parent

    ppj is right kdog (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    Seriously folks. In my day doing your secretary was considered an offence subject to for cause dismissal.

    That is why everyone looked the other way and made believe that nothing was happening.

    Parent

    The "exception" being (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    that you only notice it when a Demo does it.

    Seriously folks, anyone calling for Rudi's dismissal from Presidential consideration?

    Go back to throwing slime UP at Obama.

    Man, what were you thinking? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    First off, Newsom shouldn't be messing with the wife of his campaign manager. It's a good way to motivate someone to sabotage your reelection from inside.

    Newsom's misadventure would be one thing if the two fell in love (people do fall in love), but that doesn't appear to be the case here. It's just not right to be doing your buddy's wife.

    There are all sorts of power issues going on that are just ugly.

    Second, I wouldn't use Guiliani as a moral yardstick for anything.

    The last I checked, the SF Chronicle poll on the subject had a slight majority saying that it's going to affect his political future negatively. If more than fifty percent of San Franciscans say your sexual conduct is going to negatively affect your political future that's bad.

    I ultimately don't judge politicians by their sex lives (unless they're hypocritically doing something in private that they condemn others for in public). Gavin is handsome and his gay marriage thing got good publicity for him among segments of the party, but was destined to fail (cities don't make laws about marriage). Based on what he's accomplished in office I can't say I'd vote for him over a lot of other good California Democrats, like Jackie Speier for ex.

    sex and the secretary (none / 0) (#18)
    by diogenes on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    The article said that she was Newsom's "appointments secretary".  In the world of Jeralyn where only hypocrites should be called on their sins surely liberal democrats who are the first to support sexual harassment laws should called to the carpet when they take advantage of power relationships.

    And while extramarital sex is not pertinent to one's fitness for office, having an affair with someone who is not only your secretary but the wife of your campaign manager shows a level of poor judgment and sliminess which reflects on one's fitness for office.

    Why is Gavin Newsom's Affair Considered Newsworthy? | 19 comments (19 topical)