For better or worse, we are long removed from the days when White House reporters pretty much knew about the marital infidelity of President John F. Kennedy and didn’t see the opportunity for front-page stories. But we have not reached consensus among journalists or among readers about how much the public has a right to know about elected officials, powerful appointed officials and unofficial but still influential public figures. Don’t look for easy rules here, but for some factors to consider in deciding whether and how to pursue stories about the private lives of public officials, whether to publish them and how to play them. Some questions you should consider (realizing that different journalists and different readers will answer them differently):

Does this matter affect the person’s ability to do his job? For instance, Vice President Dick Cheney’s heart ailments have required absences from his job. Clearly these are news. In contrast to the days when Woodrow Wilson’s incapacitation was largely secret, we now recognize that the health of public officials is generally valid news. The more the ailment has to do with the ability to work, the more relevant it is. For instance, you might decide it’s none of your business or your readers’ if the mayor has an annual physical and her doctor prescribes Lipitor for high cholesterol, but if she’s going to be hospitalized for removal of gallstones and someone will be acting mayor, that’s clearly news. Or maybe you decide to do a brief on the annual physical, while the gallstones run on the local section front.

Does this matter reflect on the person’s conduct in office? This was a factor in the Spokesman-Review’s investigation of Spokane Mayor Jim West. The newspaper reported that West was offering city internships to young men with whom he was seeking sexual relationships. This added an important element to the newspaper’s findings, well beyond a story about a mayor seeking relationships with young men. Sexual harassment allegations against Senators Bob Packwood and Brock Adams involved their conduct in office. Though former Oregon Gov. and Transportation Secretary Neil Goldschmidt was out of office by the time his sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl became public, its relevance increased because it was during his tenure as mayor of Portland.

Does this matter reflect on the person’s character? Character matters for public officials. They publish family pictures on campaign brochures and proudly reveal private matters that reflect positively on their character. Private matters that reflect negatively on their character matter to readers as well (though to varying degrees, same as the positive private matters). Office holders take solemn oaths to uphold the laws and the Constitution. If they take equally solemn marriage vows lightly, that may say something – to some readers anyway – about how seriously they will carry out their official duties.

Does this matter involve a crime or a possible crime? Once Bill Clinton testified under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the story was not just a sex scandal but also a perjury investigation. The Oregonian’s story about an alleged attempted rape by Congressman David Wu would have been weaker if the matter were never reported to police. On the other hand, it would have been stronger if police had charged him or if he had been convicted. The West story in Spokane gained strength because of allegations of sexual abuse of minors. The Goldschmidt story might not have been a story at all, especially years after he left office, except that the girl’s age made the relationship a crime. When reporting on matters of private misconduct, always consider whether the conduct might be a crime. Sexual harassment, for instance, generally is not a crime unless it crosses a line to become sexual assault or stalking. However, consensual sexual relations can be a crime, depending on the ages of the parties. State in your stories what the appropriate laws say, what the potential punishments are and whether statute of limitations issues apply.

How current is this matter? Rare is the Baby Boomer who hasn’t smoked marijuana, even if some of them don’t admit inhaling. Obviously that’s not as important as a current drug problem. The older a matter is, the more serious it must be to be newsworthy. But not every old story can be dismissed simply as a “youthful indiscretion” of no news value. Clearly the Wu story and Neil Goldschmidt stories involved old allegations that became a factor in their newsworthiness. The Bob Packwood and Brock Adams stories were current, so timeliness wasn’t a factor. The Paula Jones story was a nagging nuisance to Bill Clinton because it dealt with conduct prior to his presidency. But when that story brought in Monica Lewinsky and conduct as president, it soared in importance. In the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush survived a late revelation of drunk driving as a young man. His National Guard service as a young man was a small issue in 2000 and a bigger issue in 2004. Though the press failed to definitively answer questions about Bush’s Guard service, the newsworthiness was never seriously questioned. Military service is not a private matter, particularly not for a commander in chief during a time of war. John Kerry’s Vietnam service and his later protest activities were fair game decades later because both were always part of the public persona he presented to voters.

Have public views of this issue changed? For a politician running for major office, almost everything is fair game at least for consideration. However, some things simply are not as important to the public as they once were. Divorce used to be a huge hurdle for a politician to clear. But we’ve elected people who have been divorced to virtually every office, including president. Certainly it’s part of the profile, but rarely a story in itself, unless the divorce case involves more serious allegations, such as abuse. Similarly, youthful marijuana use is hardly a big story any more. But certainly a public figure’s use of cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine would still be a big story. Alcoholism would be a big story if the candidate or office holder was still drinking. But for a recovering alcoholic who had been sober for years, it might be just part of the candidate profile.

Does the matter reveal hypocrisy? An element in the West story was the inconsistency between the mayor’s private life and his anti-gay stands in the Washington Legislature. A story that outed a liberal politician or a moderate or conservative politician who has not spoken or voted against gay rights would face different considerations. Similarly, a politician’s car is rarely newsworthy, but if a politician argues for energy independence or higher fuel-efficiency standards and drives a Hummer, that’s going to be newsworthy.

Is this person a public figure? That’s an easy question to answer for elected officials or top appointed public executives: Yes. Some other people may be public figures even though they operate in the private sector. CEO’s of major businesses generally should be regarded as public figures. Clergy and teachers certainly are public figures whose positions may make some private matters newsworthy. Sexual misconduct by clergy and teachers with minors, certainly is newsworthy because it involves abuse of the authority of their positions. Extramarital affairs for teachers or clergy with adults would generally need to involve other factors. For instance, given the controversy Vatican position on gays in the priesthood, a priest in a gay relationship might be considered newsworthy now, when newspapers might have passed on such a story a year ago. Political leaders who are high-profile advocates for special interests also become public figures, less newsworthy than office holders but more subject to scrutiny than other citizens.

Don’t look for easy answers

Many stories involve consideration of more than one of these questions. However you decide, you can’t ensure that you will please all your readers. If you write the story, some readers will say you are prying into matters that should be private. If you don’t, some readers will say you are covering up for people in power. Some of the factors will shape your coverage and play more than they will decide whether you pursue the story and whether you publish.

Sometimes the proper decision is to publish the story along with an explanation of your reasons for publishing and your consideration of various factors. Most readers understand that these are not black-and-white decisions. Whatever you decide, some readers will disagree. You might decide that a long-ago consensual affair between adults is no one’s business, and some readers will decide that you’re covering up. Or you might decide that criminal conduct is newsworthy whenever it occurred and some readers will think you are dredging up mud about youthful mistakes because your editorial page opposes the candidate. You want to weigh all factors carefully and make decisions that are fair. You want to consider what you’ve done in the past, without being bound by it. Consistency is nice, but that doesn’t mean you should repeat past mistakes. However, if you let a particular kind of offense pass for a Republican politician (or played it on the front page), you should consider whether to take the same course when presented with similar behavior by a Democrat.