Open Letter to the Huffington Post

You've just gone live with a lurid story over how Stephen Hawking visits sex clubs.

How in God's name is this anybody's business? I mean, part of me cringes even bringing it up because it just gives more exposure to this garbage, but I do so because I think it brings up a wider issue worth addressing.

Y'know, years ago–before any and all sense of privacy and decorum was crushed into non-existence–if this crap had crossed the desk of any responsible news editor, he would have taken one look at it and asked a simple question: "Is this news?" And by "news," he would have meant information that was covered by the public's right to know.

The answer in this instance would have been an uncategorical "no." He would have tossed it. He might even have upbraided the reporter for wasting his time with such garbage. He would have said, "This is tabloid crap."

Remember tabloid crap? The tabloids were considered the nadir of journalism. They weren't even seen as real newspapers. Any serious journalist wouldn't have been caught dead writing a story that would have been front-page fodder for the likes of the National Enquirer.

I know it makes me seem like some sort of elderly coot if I wax nostalgic for "the old days," but you know what? Journalism used to mean standards. Integrity. An understanding that just because something was known to the news organization, it did not automatically have to become known to the general population. Here's a rule of thumb: if you can't imagine Walter Cronkite reporting the story–if you simply cannot hear these words coming out of his mouth–then chances are it's not worthy to be disseminated. Assuming people remember who Walter Cronkite was.

And do not, Huffpo, just shrug and say, "Don't kill the messenger." That's not it. What's intrinsically wrong with killing the messenger is that the poor bastard had no choice. He was handed a message by his king or queen or warlord or emperor or whatever and told, "Deliver this." You don't kill him because he was simply doing his job and you're just pissed off at the guy who sent him with the message. This–this right here–was not something you were obliged to do. The public had neither right nor need to know this. It will have no impact on their lives, affect nothing. It's just opening a peep show into someone else's life that is none of the public's goddamn business.

You're better than this, Huffpo. Or if you're not, then you damned well should be. More and more, the term "responsible journalism" is becoming an oxymoron. True journalism balances the public's right to know against the the public's need to know. If the story doesn't fit both criteria, it should be spiked, if for no other reason than sheer human decency.

PAD