JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

I had just finished teaching a seminar at the UCI Academy for Lifelong

Learning when the John Noyes story broke. My seminar subject was “The

American News Media -- Why Kill the Messenger?”

I had a lively and outspoken group of participants who gave me a lot of

reasons for -- if not killing -- at least rapping the messenger sharply

on the side of the head.

Since one of their major criticisms was what they considered an

outrageous invasion of personal privacy by the press, I hate to think

where they would have gone with the Noyes affair. And I’m not sure how

stoutly I would have performed my seminar role as defender of the press

because I see more gray than black or white in the exposure of Noyes’

past problems.

I believe strongly, along with Tom Jefferson, that an unfettered,

aggressive press in this country has done more to protect our freedoms

and shape up our public officials than any other element in our society.

But I also believe that there has been a steadily growing intrusion into

the private affairs of people in public life by the press in recent

years.

Sometimes the intrusions have weighed directly on their public

performance. Sometimes they haven’t. And sometimes it’s hard to make a

distinction. Complicating the problem is the fact that we tend to approve

intrusions in the lives of people we don’t like and deplore them when the

victim thinks the way we do.

My own background in journalism has some bearing on these feelings. I

grew up with a president who suffered from a polio so crippling that he

couldn’t stand unaided. Yet -- and this is incredible to me now -- I

wasn’t aware of his infirmity, largely because it was never mentioned in

the press and he was never photographed with his braces showing.

President Warren Harding’s peccadilloes, Dwight Eisenhower’s relationship

with his female driver during World War II, FDR’s estrangement from his

wife and long affair with Lucy Mercer, even John Kennedy’s extramarital

adventures were not spread across the media at the time they happened --

partly out of ethical restraint and largely because they were deemed to

have little or no bearing on public performance.

I made more than a few similar choices in five decades as a working

journalist that probably would be regarded as foolishly sentimental

today.

Now the press almost universally goes for the jugular, a much tougher

place from which to weigh the two critical questions posed in the Noyes

affair: is the revelation of deeply disturbing events that took place in

Noyes’ life one to two decades ago in the public interest? Is it

justified because it raises serious questions about Noyes’ qualifications

for public office and his ability to perform those duties effectively?

Those questions seem almost quaint today, when anyone running for public

office in this country can be certain that his or her past is going to be

exhumed, whether or not it has anything to do with how well they can

perform their public duties. And the resultant judgments will too often

grow out of limited information, fear, hostility or an overpowering sense

of self-righteousness by those doing the judging.

The excessive nature of the Noyes case makes these ethical questions

easier to resolve. Alleged child abduction and falsifying a Social

Security card, both clearly suggested by documents in the case, can’t be

shrugged off in a public official, no matter how long ago they took place

and what extenuating circumstances might have existed.

Still -- despite the solid investigative reporting -- there is much we

don’t know, especially about his motives in this matter.

In this ethical dilemma, two other components that weigh heavily against

Noyes are betrayal and hypocrisy. Many of the people who supported Noyes

feel betrayed by his failure to deal honestly with his own past. And even

more seem to be angry at the hypocrisy implicit in his criticism of

colleagues for what he regarded as unethical behavior.

In light of his past, his credibility in taking ethical stands now would

seem to be close to zero -- which is not an effective place from which to

govern.

I realize that decisions have to be made and acted on in such matters,

and I’m glad I didn’t have to decide whether to publish the article in

this instance. I’m not at all sure I would have arrived at the same

place.

Although I understand that gray is an indulgence decision-makers finally

don’t enjoy, it is also a legitimate place from which others can usefully

evaluate the decision and its impact on the larger issues involved.

The Noyes case provides a test-tube model of the complexities that arise

in meeting the media’s enormous responsibility to weigh carefully the

public interest before upending the life of an individual and those close

to him or her.

And because few people have lived spotless lives, not the least of those

considerations is the impact such exposure will have in convincing good

candidates not to run for public office.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column usually

appears Thursdays.