South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admitted to having an affair during a news conference Wednesday.
(Mary Ann Chastain/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Why didn’t S.C. paper publish Sanford’s love letters sooner?
The State received the governor’s missives to his Argentine lover in an anonymous e-mail in December.
By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer/ June 25, 2009 edition
Atlanta
“The rarest of all commodities in this world is love.”
Those plaintive words from South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford – a married father of four – to his lover in Argentina are among many intimate epiphanies revealed in e-mails published by The State newspaper in Columbia, S.C., following the governor’s return from a now no-longer mysterious five day trip to Buenos Aires.
But as the Palmetto State pours over the romance novel revelations of a wayward politician, there are also questions about why South Carolina’s premier watchdog newspaper sat on the story since receiving the e-mails anonymously last December.
The State’s editors have said they could not confirm until now whether the e-mails, which came from Governor Sanford’s state e-mail account, actually were the governor’s work.
But the tryst’s potential effect on the state – questions are now emerging about whether taxpayers paid for the governor’s trips to Argentina – and the newspaper’s decision to hold off on publishing the love-sick missives reflects, at least in part, on the plight of a newspaper business in decline.
American Journalism Review wrote earlier this year that there’s been “a staggering loss of reporting firepower at American state capitols.” The State is down to three full-time statehouse reporters, according to an AJR survey.
“This is a [case] where presumably a whistleblower was doing the work for the paper and reporters … failed to smell the smoking gun when it first started to smoke, some of which could be attributed to cutbacks,” says Todd Gitlin, a journalism professor at Columbia University in New York.
Newspaper editors bristle at such assertions. Mike Smith, executive editor of the Spartanburg, S.C., Herald-Journal paper, defended The State’s decision: “The State has said pretty clearly that they couldn’t verify that these were coming from the governor, and [not running the story] is a perfectly reasonable course to take,” says Mr. Smith.
There are other reasons. Southern journalism, especially, tends to be more familial, with potentially scandalous revelations more likely to be kept under wraps. What’s more, journalists have long struggled to balance rumors and even facts of affairs with the public’s right to know, says Jack Doppelt, a journalism professor at Northwestern University.
Writing about affairs “takes journalism to a very unseemly place – you need something more,” says Professor Doppelt.
Many commenters on thestate.com have called the Sanford e-mails “shoddy reporting” that shouldn’t have been published at all. Moreover, the paper has been at the forefront of covering the MIA governor, including being the only news organization to have a reporter waiting at Atlanta’s Hartfield-Jackson airport to get an exclusive interview with the returning pol.
But some readers are mad that the newspaper held back on publishing a story that could have helped explain part of the political rancor in Columbia and the governor’s growing dissatisfaction and distance from his job.
“It was wrong not to publish them in the light of the stimulus debate and budget battle,” writes one commenter on the State’s website. “Shame on The State for not digging in … to source these e-mails and bring the governor’s irresponsible behavior to light earlier.”
Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard echoes many comments in saying that, in hindsight, the affair “certainly affected his performance in office.”
Comments
2. Melinda W. | 06.25.09
Rather ask, why did they publish them at all? It is one thing to publish the fact of having them, but to publish their contents, which are heartfelt and meant to be private between two people, is simply wrong. I think any media that publishes the contents has descended to tabloid level.
4. Melinda W. | 06.25.09
They could “tell the truth” without printing the details. It’s enough to say “the Governor exchanged love letters with” and then to have the decency (something missing in journalism today) not to print the actual contents of the letters. The public may have a right to know that this public figure was engaged in this affair (although I think that’s a debatable proposition), but I don’t think it has any right to the actual content of what were meant to be private love letters. That’s prurient, and unnecessary.
5. Rose Bunjas | 06.25.09
The Republican Party has digressed into the family values and sexual digressions party. Please do as I say and not as I do while a start needless wars and squander this nation’s capital and blame the next sucker. Its a blame and shame game that America now has zero tolerance for, while the Hannities and Limbaugh scream about the ethics of those nasty liberals. Lets face it the Republicans have a destructive agenda which is not in line with mainstream Americans.
6. Mike Licht | 06.25.09
Oh great. First the Republicans ruin the US economy, now they’re even outsourcing adultery.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/gop-governor-outsources-adultery/
7. Melinda W. | 06.25.09
And these are the people who brought us the Defense of Marriage Act.
Not doing such a good job of defending their own marriages, it seems.
8. Matt | 06.25.09
I’m in full agreement with Melinda. You can responsibly report that someone did something without going into all the sordid, gory details - no matter how heartfelt. As for comparisons between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats are just as guilty of moral “slips” as Republicans. The difference is that the Democrats don’t go around posturing themselves as the moral compasses of the world. To be clear on my stance, I am a Libertarian. You cannot legislate morality (as the Republicans seem to want to do) or stupidity (as the Democrats seem to want to do). Individuality liberty and personal responsibility is the only sensible solution that’s suitable for a truly free nation - as our Founding Fathers intended.
9. David Ciaffardini | 06.26.09
This story does not tell us whether The State asked the Governor or his representatives if the e-mails were legitimate. Were State reporters too gun shy to even bring up the subject with the governor’s office and give an opportunity to confirm or deny? Were ANY inquiries made?
10. Annelies | 06.26.09
Getting back to the point of the story, I have a question. How hard could it be for the newspaper to verify that the emails came from/were sent to the governor’s IP address (or at the least, a state government server)? I just Googled it, and came up with MILLIONS of hits. So I’m not buying the “lack of firepower” argument.
And furthermore, at the very least, publishing the contents of the emails is tacky.
11. RJ Florida | 06.26.09
Silly republican, only LIBERALS get to cheat on their wife at taxpayers expense and then get the media to apologize endlessly. I still hear about how President Clinton’s affairs were(are) a “Private Matter”. Then out of the other side of their mouth they declare Sanfords are a “Public disgrace”. When a liberal is gone for a few days it’s a “Spiritual retreat” when republican does it it’s “Abandoning your job”.
12. David Renton | 06.26.09
During the 60’s the GOP was fond of telling Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that you could not legislate morality. It is a pity that they have failed to heed their own advice. Here in SC, Republican sin is different than Democratic sin anyway. Though we all should probably cry out for Sanford’s resignation, not because of his South American assignations but because he left his post unattended, we are faced with a Lieutenant Governor who has done some things which bring into question his judgement. And so it goes…..
13. Anna | 06.26.09
I hear some are asking that the Republican Party apologize for the Clinton Impeachment, also based on a extramarital affair.
14. Lauren | 06.26.09
I agree with Melinda as well. I was shocked to see snipets of his love letters published in general articles about the situation. It doesn’t matter whether he is a public figure or not–there needs to be a distinction between the public/professional life and the personal life. It is not anyone’s business what those letters said, and it is disappointing to see that the media seems not to have any moral standards these days.
15. jamie | 06.26.09
i’ve purchashed my last copy of the state newspaper which i thought was bias all along
16. Margaret Zuber | 06.26.09
Dear Patrick,
Great reporting! Just one error, though: “as the Palmetto State pours over the romance novel….” To pour is to transfer something from a pitcher, bottle, or whatever, into a glass (one of many definitions). I think you meant “pore.” This word conveys the meaning of being totally absorbed in the details of something - going over & over it. Maybe a typo or just rushing to meet a publication deadline?
17. Gwen | 06.26.09
I’m not sure I get the point here…if the newspaper had published unverified e-mails, they would have been vilified. If they had not published them at all, they would be accused of a cover-up. And by not publishing them earlier, people seem to wonder…exactly what? That perhaps Sanford would have curtailed his affair if he knew the e-mails were out there? If he didn’t curtail it when his wife found out, why would the newspaper be a more effective deterent?
As to their publication at all, I’ll admit some embarrassment in reading the private communication between two people who obviously cared for each other, regardless of the appropriateness of the relationship. But is seems a catch-22 to argue the e-mails should have been printed earlier, without verification, and then to also argue they shoudl not have been printed at all.
Let’s face it…when you put something inappropriate in an e-mail, you’re just asking for it to come back to bite you at the worst possible moment. And, ultimately, you’re the only one responsible for your words and actions. I feel sad for everyone involved.
18. JoAnn Dimond | 06.27.09
I find it appaling that the love letters were held back from print for six months. Local papers ofter write only one-half of a story or don’t print letters to the editor. So many papers are going out of business and perhaps this is why. For years I have been trying to tell editors that all of the Sea Islands off the coast of S.C. between Charleston,S.C. and Savannah,Ga. are territories of the federal government and have never belonged to the State. So that most of what is done on these islands is illegal. I have all of the law to prove this and yet no one believes me. Here is Gov. Sanford admitting to lying and yet the paper went along. Those of us who don’t lie wish to be treated as Sanford was. Given the benefit of the doubt. In 1952 the U.S. Congerss tried to give these islands to S.C. but Pres.Truman vetoed it. Thank you for your time
19. Karen | 06.29.09
I agree that it would have been reckless for The State to print the notes without verification. The points about the effect of dwindling newsroom resources - all true. I’m grateful the newspaper broke the Sanford story and they deserve credit.
Still, it’s perfectly fair, in fact, important, to understand the conditions and/or thought process behind the paper’s decision to shelve this information while Sanford, in effect, launched an undeclared campaign for the presidency of the United States.
For years, people around the SC State House have joked about Sanford’s unusually close personal friendships with one or two well placed local reporters. Most likely, 99 percent hogwash. But the fact remains that throughout his campaigns and two administrations, the paper has for the most part given Mark Sanford a free ride, rarely taking him to task for his abrasive tactics or the gaping, glaring contradictions in his purported philosophies or his administration’s lack of transparency etc. To many, the State has acted more like a PR firm, a mouthpiece, a tool for Sanford than anything else. Especially on its editorial pages, The State has portray the governor almost as some kind of political guru.
So,big fat breadcrumbs about Sanford basically fall into the paper’s lap(ok, laptops)but they wait six months to seriously follow up. (by checking the governor’s travel itinerary for the dates mentioned in the e-mails, acquiring his travel expense records,etc) They did not take those steps, nor did they sit down with Sanford, away from his handlers, and show him the notes. I’m think his expression, alone, could have told them a lot.
South Carolina has such massive, complicated problems and they are getting bigger by the day. I don’t know if my comments are fair to The State, and if they aren’t I apologize. I do know that more than ever, we need discerning, careful journalists who aren’t so close to the players involved, so focused on the lower-hanging “ inside baseball” stories that they become unable to look at situations, assertions, policies, and players squarely and with open eyes.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Terry Scott | 06.25.09
I would not call the Sanford affair a “distraction” but a major hurdle for the GOP that continues to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that they are the party of “family values” and the moral compass of this country.