Commenters at the Knoxville News Sentinel and WBIR.com are divided. Some say divorce is a personal tragedy (and having been through it myself, I can attest to that), unworthy of public scrutiny. Others say the current context of Ragsdale’s political and legal troubles make the divorce a legitimate topic for media coverage.
What do you think?
UPDATE: LVG ponders the same question:
The news that Claudia Ragsdale filed for divorce earlier today citing “inappropriate marital conduct” did not come as a surprise. Every journalist in this town has been sitting on this “developing story” for months. In the case of our newspaper, we had what could only be termed unimpeachable testimony weeks ago from a source close to Mrs. Ragsdale ago who confirmed the growing chorus of rumors. Despite this, our publisher chose not to print what we knew.
I believe that was the right decision, but this story raises some interesting ethical questions for journalists. To what degree is a public figure’s private life really private? How do you publicize the sins of the alleged guilty party without causing more pain for the aggrieved, in this case, the mayor’s wife? If you believe a public figure’s private misconduct can be linked to official misconduct, are you justified in printing what you know of the former?
The euphemistic “inappropriate marital misconduct” is shorthand for adultery. If the plaintiff in a divorce suit does not cite names, is it ethical for a newspaper to do so? (This assumes, obviously, that your evidence is bullet-proof — libel suits are expensive.)
What about editorial writing? is this latest episode in the unraveling of the county’s chief executive fair game for the editorialist? Where is the line drawn?
I don’t pretend to have definitive answers to such questions. In the end, the journalist looks within, considers the audience, the potential fallout on innocent parties, and makes the most conscientious decision she or he can. Concerning the Ragsdale situation, let’s just say for now that we’re confident there’s much more to come.
Bad Behavior has blocked 678 access attempts in the last 7 days.
The man is a controversial public figure - abusing power and taxpayers’ money in a Teflon suit. It’s not beneath him to use this for sympathy, but look, he’s out of town! He has shown no remorse for any of his actions that we know about. On a slow news day, go for it.
I think it’s legitimate for news organizations to report it. Don’t beat it to death like a tabloid rag, but state the truth and move on if there’s nothing more to it. As far as Mr. Ragsdale is probably concerned, it’s much more difficult to keep these things under wraps these days and perhaps it’s better to just have it out there and let it blow over.