What Is ‘Relevant’ for Voters? : Press Breaks New Ground With Questions About Sex

Less than a week after Democratic presidential hopeful Gary Hart withdrew from the race after allegations that he engaged in extra-marital sex, the New York Times has sent a questionnaire to prospective presidential candidates asking how they would respond to inquiries about their sex lives.

“How,” the questionnaire asks, “should a hypothetical presidential candidate who has not committed adultery answer the question, ‘have you ever committed adultery?’ ”

Following that, it asked: “How should a hypothetical presidential candidate who has committed adultery answer the same question?”

“We told them it was beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate to answer (such questions),” said John Buckley, press secretary to Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.).

However, Craig Whitney, the New York Times’ Washington bureau chief, defended the questionnaire: “We did not ask them if they committed adultery.” The question, he said, of “whether the press should be meddling in private lives . . . is in the air. . . . We wanted to find out what the other candidates felt.” Their answers, he added, might be “interesting and news.”

Whitney said the questionnaire and requests for the candidates’ medical and personal financial records were accompanied by a letter saying “we would be investigating your backgrounds . . . and would like to have access to all relevant information.”

It was the questionnaire, though, that drew most of the attention Tuesday.

One candidate’s press secretary, who asked not to be identified, said: “Even if they don’t ask the question outright, the questionnaire alone suggests we have entered new territory of press inquiry.”

Indeed, in light of Hart’s dizzying fall after the Miami Herald disclosed his meetings with model Donna Rice of Miami, journalists around the country are asking themselves whether they have unwittingly made even the most intimate areas of a presidential candidate’s private life subjects for public inquiry.

A Matter of Judgment?

Most journalists who defended the revelations about Hart last week insisted that the issue in his case was judgment and integrity, not sexual morality. Hart, after all, had denied rumors of womanizing and knew reporters might watch him; but he brazenly took chances anyway.

Now, however, some journalists and political professionals wonder whether that careful distinction will be upheld in practice in the future.

“The bell that’s been rung can’t be unrung,” said Bill Kovach, editor of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. “It is clear that standard (sexual fidelity) has already established itself in the minds of a lot of journalists.”

Some editors now think they will pursue tips about the private lives of candidates they might have ignored two weeks ago.

Some Fear Press Harm

All this troubles many other journalists, who believe that unless some link is shown suggesting that private behavior determines public conduct, the matter not only is irrelevant but also will cause the press itself harm.

“It is a much tougher issue than people said last week,” said Albert Hunt, Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal. The insistence that the issue with Hart was never his sexual conduct, Hunt said, was “a cop-out.”

“We can’t tell yet whether the territory has changed,” said Carl Leubsdorf political writer for the Dallas Morning News.

Yet Leubsdorf conceded that in light of the Hart story, he “may be a little more likely” to pursue rumors about candidates’ sexual misconduct.

One reason sex may be more of an issue now than two weeks ago, oddly, is a sense of fairness, Leubsdorf said. “You have to show that what you did for one (candidate) you have to do for another.”

All Candidates on Notice

Others said they would be more likely to pursue allegations of sexual infidelity than before in part because all candidates are on notice that sex could be an issue. Hence, any evidence of infidelity now may be a sign of questionable judgment.

“Realistically there is a difference now,” said Reg Murphy, editor and publisher of the Baltimore Sun. But, “I think you have to ask in each case if there is a pattern of behavior rather than an incident. And you have to inquire into the circumstances.”

Such distinctions may be difficult to apply, however. For one thing, not all journalists have the same standards. The Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau met to discuss the issue last week and took a hand vote of whether sexual fidelity was an appropriate issue for press inquiry. The bureau was evenly divided.

Competition Becomes Factor

What does one do when one news organization pursues whispers of sexual infidelity about a candidate that another would pass by? The competitive nature of news can take the choice out of the hands of those who would abstain on the story. That indeed happened in Hart’s case.

“There is always some idiot in every herd asking idiotic questions,” said James Squires, editor of the Chicago Tribune. “You can’t stop them.”

“That happens to be one of the costs of freedom,” said Dennis A. Britton, deputy managing editor of the Los Angeles Times.

Indeed, it is people asking questions when they have no grounds for suspicion “that is the genie that we don’t want to let out of the bottle,” Britton said.

Kovach said he intends to counter the problem by asking his staff “not to include it in their stories every time a question is asked ‘have you ever committed adultery.’ ”

None ‘of Us Comfortable’

Others are less concerned the Hart affair has unleashed some dangerous genie. “I don’t think any of us are comfortable dealing with these things on a regular basis,” said Ken Bode, national political correspondent for NBC News.

Campaign staffs, too, have discussed the issue of how they will respond. Democratic Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware said that if asked by reporters about adultery, he would tell them it was none of their business. The Rev. Jesse Jackson issued a statement saying adultery should not be an issue in presidential politics.

Most papers do not have set policies on whether candidates’ sexual conduct is appropriate for inquiry, but many editors said Tuesday they have discussed them at length in recent days.

Free to Pursue Any Question

Britton of The Times said he wants the paper’s reporters covering the presidential campaign “to pursue any questions that come up.”

By the same token, he said, he thinks candidates have every right to tell reporters it is none of their business.

Benjamin C. Bradlee, executive editor of the Washington Post, declined to answer questions on the matter.

Whitney of the New York Times said the questionnaires are part, in effect, of the Times’ examination of the issue of propriety.

In general, he said, “I just don’t think there is any harm in asking anything. I am not offended by anyone asking anything.”