My guess, based on conversations with leading journalists over the years, is that many are resolute: Can't aid and abet those right-wing Republicans, can we? That was the attitude among many New Jersey reporters covering Gov. Jim McGreevey. You've probably heard the story by now. Said governor, while posing as a dedicated family guy with a young daughter, made his homosexual lover, a public relations man, his personal advisor on homeland security matters (this is not a joke) and then appointed him to a $110,000-a-year job without specific responsibilities.
That all came out when McGreevey announced on Aug. 12 that he was resigning, thus pre-empting his now-estranged lover's threat either to blackmail or file a sexual harassment suit. But the basis of this news was old: The Trenton Times noted on Aug. 14 that New Jersey Democratic leaders had feared for two years that the affair was "a time bomb likely to go off."
Many Jersey journalists might have inquired had the governor been heterosexual and his appointee curvaceous, but even then (as with Bill Clinton) ideology often buries reportorial digging. With a gay or bisexual governor involved, reporters certainly did not want to be considered "homophobic."
Two political implications of the rule of ideology: First, character counts. Since ideologically committed voters have less opportunity to choose, behind-the-scenes politicos need to do character checks on prospective nominees and kick out those without self-control. That's in the self-interest of the political class -- otherwise, "In McGreevey's fall, we sinned all," and many staffers are out of work because of the self-indulgence of their boss.
Second, when the power-brokers mess up, a free press should be the last refuge for ousting scoundrels -- but we journalists can fulfill that function only when we grasp once again that our job is to tell the truth, even when it is politically inconvenient.