February 15, 2004

State of Affairs

There Have Been A Lot of Wild Geese But No Golden Eggs in Rumors that Swirl in Murky Election-Year Air

By MIKE HAILEY

Where there's smoke there's fire - unless it's really a blue haze coming off a highly polished mirror.

For the past few weeks Austin has been ablaze with rumors about the more personal lives of several powerful political figures. All of the gossip centers on marital infidelity in some form or fashion. Texas political veterans are amazed at how fast the scintillating whispers have traveled through a recycling process that adds shocking new details on each successive trip. The most sizzling grapevine buzz remains unsubstantiated but continues to mushroom with daily embellishment because the only people who know the true story are saying or doing nothing to refute it.

Pretending the rumors do not exist has allowed them to flourish wildly. But it's probably still the smartest way to deal with the runaway rumor mill at this point in time. The only other options would be a public confession or denial - and both have major downsides. Take the case of the metaphorical politician who's asked at a press conference if it's true that he's guilty of spousal abuse. If he denies it, the rumor becomes news. Some people will be more inclined to believe it when they read about it in the newspaper, even if the target of the gossip says it isn't true.

By the same token, acknowledging the veracity of something like an extramarital relationship will often spawn a new wave of rumors instead of putting an end to them. The case of State Senator Mario Gallegos is testament to that. But the veteran lawmaker's case is different because his private liaison had been a well-kept secret for years until the other party blew the whistle and forced him to deal with it publicly. And even when he did so with a humble apology and show of support from his family, he denied some charges within the charges and rumors still persist.

Austin has always been a hotbed for hearsay and gossip. That's inevitable in any state capital city with a large concentration of people who are passionate about their work in a business that's driven and defined by power. The higher the stakes the more cutthroat the competition. In a town of political junkies, information about the people in politics is always in big demand.

But when the talk gets personal, it creates dilemmas for others beyond the characters in the rumors. Reporters who cover the state Capitol, for example, have to make arbitrary calls from time to time on whether there's a line between political culpability and personal privacy and where it should be. The recent rash of speculation about cheating spouses has forced members of the press corps to explore that question once again. Some newspapers and television stations that felt an obligation to check out what appeared to be solid leads have found themselves chasing their tails. There have been no golden eggs - just a lot of wild geese.

When reporters hear a rumor with front-page potential, they have to ask themselves how it relates to the main characters' public responsibilities as well as the positions and values they've advocated as candidates en route to their current stations of power or those to which they aspire. That's a tough question when the allegation is adultery because the answer varies from voter to voter. It's a big issue ostensibly for voters who want leaders who stress family values both as candidates and elected officials. Many conservatives and liberals alike would say it's more an issue of trust than a gauge of morality. How can a voter count on a public official to do what's right when their own spouses can't trust them? Because they are hired by the voters and paid by the taxpayers, the people who run for public office and win are subject to more scrutiny in both public and private life than the more common woman or man. It goes with the territory - an inherent concession in a tradeoff for the power and perks that elected officials enjoy.

But then again, who's really qualified to cast the first stone? People tend to forget sometimes that elected officials are human. More people who get married experience marital problems at some point than those who live the rest of their lives together in uninterrupted bliss. When friends or family members have done something to undermine the vows of matrimony, most are given a chance to put their relationships back together without a lot of external grief or ridicule. Why shouldn't people who hold public office be given that same chance?

Information provided confidentially by political opponents is immediately suspect - even though it could be accurate. The reason it's usually passed on anonymously is because the original and subsequent sources of such delicate information fear that their reputations would be damaged as much as the target of the rumors if they were exposed.

In the final analysis, the decision on whether to turn personal tales into news stories boils down to a dual question. Is it the truth or is someone who knows the true story making the claim officially? At the presidential campaign level, those are not necessarily prerequisites for publication. But for everything on down - barring allegations or admissions by one of the central parties or a third party accuser who's willing to go on the record - before something like that is published in the mainstream media the answer would usually have to be a definitive yes.

That's why most of the rumors we've all been hearing and repeating haven't made it into the newspapers yet. Nobody knows for sure if they're true and those who do aren't talking.

Mike Hailey's column appears every week or two in the Viewpoints section