Thanks to someone (my money’s on a disgruntled candidate) leaking the list of questions, our newspaper chain’s upcoming weekend story delving into the wealth of the various Democratic and Republican candidates vying for Governor and U.S. Senate is getting some welcome free publicity here, here and here.
The responses to the idea have been very interesting to read, and some of the reactions have admittedly been less than complimentary.
Somebody named “George” wrote on one blog: “Sounds like a questionnaire Robin Leach might use to qualify guests for his TV show Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Sadly, this is what passes for journalism in CT today.”
So let me get this straight…
Senate candidate/Former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO/millionaire Linda McMahon of Greenwich can try to relate to voters by talking about how she and husband Vince went through bankruptcy three decades ago; gubernatorial candidate/Greenwich millionaire/cable executive Ned Lamont, when launching his gubernatorial campaign, can give a speech trying to relate to voters by recalling how he was “cook, chief bottle washer” etc. etc. etc. when he started his business; and gubernatorial candidate/millionaire Tom Foley of Greenwich can don his barn coat and jeans in campaign ads, again to relate to average voters … and the press isn’t supposed to try and give voters a sense of what these folks are really worth and how they really live their lives?
Each of these candidates and those I did not name are concerned about their public image. They want to be seen as being able to sympathize with and understand those voters who have lost or are worried about losing a job, have lost or are worried about losing health insurance and have lost or are worried about losing a home. And those candidates with money in particular want to downplay their wealth, even as they’re paradoxically relying on their fortunes to run for office during a particularly populist, “let’s burn those high-paid, big-bonus-earning suits at the stake!” period in this country’s history.
Seems like an atmosphere that calls for digging a little deeper into the lifestyles of our rich and somewhat famous candidates, particularly when some of their opponents are going after the same issue.
Former Stamford Mayor/gubernatorial candidate Dannel Malloy recently took a shot at the financial resources of fellow Democrat Lamont and other monied candidates, stating “when you get bored with the polo ponies you run for office.” But is Malloy living pretty comfortably himself? Shouldn’t the press try to find out?
Likewise when former Congressman Rob Simmons attempts to paint fellow Republican Linda McMahon as a hollow, gold-plated candidate trying to buy herself a Senate seat, isn’t it fair to explore whether Simmons is doing quite alright for himself, thank you very much?
Is wealth the only issue in these races? Of course not. We’ve reported on candidates’ positions on various issues and will continue to do so in the run up to the May conventions, during the primaries and right on up to November’s general elections.
Even if you still disagree with our wealth/lifestyle questions, I’m sure of one thing – you know most of you are going to take a peek at what we learn when the story is published. You won’t be able to help yourselves. This is America, baby. Everyone wants to know how the other half lives … particularly when the other half wants to be elected so they can set policy for the rest of you.
Of course it’s fair — but it’s also beneath what readers expect from the news. Sensationalistic material like this makes it appear that Hearst is more interested in generating tongue-wagging controversy than hard news or genuine insight. (“How much do you pay for a haircut?” Really?)
Of course you’ve “reported on candidates’ positions on various issues” — but you certainly have never reported on any other issue in this depth. So it’s fair for your readers to criticize the paper as having misplaced priorities.
I’d have hoped that one of the few journalists I respect at the chain would have had the good sense to be embarassed about this lurid, tasteless effort by the paper’s editors instead of defending and glorifying the upcoming piece, insisting that it’s alright because your view of the community you serve is that we have as little decency as you do.
It sounds like, from your perspective, the scoldings you’ve received around the web are a measure of success — that people are interested in the story. To combat that impression, let me tell you that my small office currently has a copy of our CT Post renewal notice on top of our inbox, and we’ve been debating whether to renew in the face of the $20 rate hike. But your post settled it for me — there’s really no price cheap enough, if this is going to be the kind of journalism we should expect from you.
Comment by matt — March 11th, 2010 @ 8:33 am
As a voter I’m insulted that Hearst thinks I’m going to base my vote on how big a candidate’s house (or houses) is, or how much he/she pays for a haircut. We’ve had enough reports on their wealth to infer what we’d like about their personal assets. This is a human interest story, which has no place in any political or voter-education realm. Are you going to compare the answers with the reports on George David and his ex’s spending habits revealed during their divorce? Or any other wealthy people in our state? Seriously, this information does nothing to further the debate on the most capable candidate and is insulting to all voters. Robin Leach is the perfect venue for this information….
Comment by Politics follower — March 11th, 2010 @ 10:06 am
Sorry to lose you, Matt, but no I am not embarassed and would hardly quantify this story as “lurid and tasteless.”
The fact is that this political season in Connecticut is all about the big bucks.
Candidates are going after their opponents’ wealth, candidates are using their wealth to buy slick ads/mailers and candidates are debating whether to participate in public financing or not.
Nothing embarassing about taking a deeper look into their wallets/lifestyles.
We’re just giving those voters who care one more piece of info on the long road to the polls. Some will learn something that might impact their views of the candidates, others will ignore the info. All we’re doing is putting it out there.
Comment by Brian Lockhart — March 11th, 2010 @ 10:10 am
I find it most interesting that rich candidates like Ned Lamont drive around to events in a small, fuel efficient, ordinary car, clearly for appearnces sake, but then go home and change into the fancy, expensive car for his real life. Just ask him and you’ll find that this is true… shades of John Edwards.
Comment by reader — March 11th, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Brian,
It’s interesting that you categorize the (alleged) distribution of the questions by a “disgruntled” candidate as a “leak.” Did Hearst request that the candidates keep the questions confidential in return for seeing them? If not, I highly doubt that a candidate would have been under any obligation, ethical or otherwise, not to divulge the questions to others.
I think that one of the truly troubling aspects of this story is that it seems almost inevitable that it will be incredibly shallow. This is because the answers to the questions can easily be manipulated by the candidates (with the exception of the front page of the tax return). For instance, I doubt that any of the candidates allowed you to see their living room “as is” for instance. What I mean by this, is that I am certain that campaign staffers carefully reviewed the contents of each individuals home before allowing your photographer in, and perhaps even snuck in a few items. It’s not as though you just dropped by unannounced. So, at least as far as the photos are concerned, what you propose is already an intellectually dishonest exercise.
As far as the other questions, candidates are almost certain to make up answers to things like “what is your favorite alcoholic beverage,” according to what they feel will be popular (my guess is a lot of domestic beers get named). There’s really nothing to keep the candidates from lying or fudging answers. The candidates are not answering these questions under oath, and a few minor omissions will likely go unnoticed.
This brings me to the crux of the problem with your story….. What you propose to do is conduct a survey; this is not reporting or journalism. I feel badly prejudging your “story,” however I will say that simply accepting self reported answers without any further investigation or follow up would not meet most newspapers standards.
If you were to apply real journalism standards, you would reach out to your sources or develop new ones, and get the answers to these questions yourself.
Call this what you want. Just don’t call it journalism.
Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — March 11th, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
Thoughtful post, Fuzzy.
But I wouldn’t assume that in some cases we won’t be digging around trying to get more details on the candidates besides the data they’re willing to provide.
And how exactly is this any different from a reporter profiling a candidate – something that is done regularly by news organizations large and small around the country and the world?
You ask questions, the candidate answers.
Do their answers necessarily correspond with how they really feel and what they really think? Do they give one answer to the press while having the night before, over a private dinner with their best friend, given a completely different answer to the same question?
Sure reporters can do their best to “truth check” a candidate’s comments, but there is only so far you can go.
Sometimes journalism is digging deep, and other times it’s simply getting the information you can out to the public for readers to evaluate.
And if one of the candidates claims he/she only sips red wine, and then a month later gets busted for brewing moonshine in their backyard, well then you’ve got their on-the-record comments to catch them in a lie.
Comment by Brian Lockhart — March 11th, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
I think you identify what appears to be a critical problem here Brian. When a candidate is individually profiled, a reporter has a greater opportunity to do individual follow up and verify facts. Of course, no one has seen the article yet, but will you honestly be able to say after this goes to press that you feel you and the other Hearst reporters did adequate follow-up and conducted a suitable background investigation regarding the answers given by EVERY candidate you asked questions of?
I will say, that so long as your doing this piece, one question I’m surprised you didn’t ask (since one some of your focus appears to be on the candidates’ homes) is whether each candidate would plan on actually occupying the Governor’s mansion while in office, unlike our current chief executive, who commutes back to Brookfield after she’s done taping her morning radio appearances.
On a final note, the politically smart move for any of the candidates would have been to simply not answer the questions. There’s no upside to answering, and very little downside to not answering. You can only write so much about the fact that someone DIDN’T answer questions you thrust upon them. The average voter either won’t be aware that a candidate chose not to participate in your bonfire of the vanities, or won’t care.
Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — March 11th, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
Fuzzy,
Doh! Asking if they plan to occupy the executive mansion would have been a great question. We’ll have to pose that in the future.
And I’m not so sure if it’s politically smart not to answer. Some of the candidates and their staffs obviously thought so, others decided it would be better to cooperate.
Comment by Brian Lockhart — March 12th, 2010 @ 10:29 am