If we are to judge our representatives by their virtues--assuming there is some sort of common understanding of what it is to be "virtuous"--rather than an extensive understanding of their stances on certain political issues, what does this mean for the scandalmongering nature of the media? Should we view the personal lives of our political leaders as fair game for public scrutiny?
On one hand, I can see how the behavior of a politician beyond the workplace should not necessarily have any bearing on how they act in a political setting; history teaches us that many great thinkers have had rough family lives and checkered pasts. But should we trust that our elected officials can always keep the two spheres separate? How politicians act in their inter-personal relationships seems, to me anyway, an important testament to his or her character, and virtue is part of that character.
Media outlets already, in their efforts to score the highest ratings, thrive on the sensational aspects of politicians for their human-interest qualities. Intellectuals concerned with citizen competence often criticize these types of stories as distractions from political discussion. In light of our discussion of the trust-based model, and our interest in our leaders' virtues, however, should these human-interest stories be given heavier weight in the considerations of so-called competent citizens? To this end--what is and is not relevant information? What should and should not be covered by the media? Perhaps all these seemingly superfluous facts about politicians constitute a way for our modern-day society to establish trust in leaders who are unable to prove themselves in the small-community way of the Founding era.
No comments:
Post a Comment