Blue Crab Boulevard

A Fundamental Misunderstanding

The reporter (and editors) who decided to break a story about Ted Haggard based only on the word of a gay hooker broke a fundamental rule of journalism. (I tried to explain this to a commenter earlier). It does not matter that Haggard later admitted some misdeeds but still denies other parts. It does not matter that the hooker failed a polygraph, either. Running a story without corroboration is not normally done. But in this case the story was the accusation itself.

That the timing of the release of the story was political in nature is almost a certainty.

And now the Associated Press weighs in and tries to inform us this is a "growing controversy" about hypocrisy. Nonsense. It is a story about one person who may be a hypocrite. Or he may simply be someone who could not live up to his own ideals. That does not mean there is a growing controversy. What it may very well mean is that this decision to run this story on the eve of the election may have repercussions.

Those repercussions may not be at all what the people planning this were hoping for. You have to read a way into the story to find it, but the key is right there.

"The attention focused on these cases will inescapably lead people to think about these people's hypocrisy," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They make a career out of defaming gay people and preaching family values, when it's clear that it's just a veneer."

Stephen Bennett, a conservative activist who describes himself as a former homosexual, also suggested the Haggard case would have political consequences.

"Will this affect the elections next Tuesday? … You better believe it," he said in a statement from the Huntington, Conn., base of Stephen Bennett Ministries. "The more and more hypocrisy I see each day, the more I realize next Tuesday we are going to get exactly what we deserve."

Other conservatives disagreed — saying support for the gay-marriage bans and for GOP candidates would not be diminished. And John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said Haggard isn't close enough to President Bush to be an ally, merely a supporter.

"We have great sympathy and disappointment, and can even be demoralized when a leader falls into sin," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "That doesn't mean we're going to vote against an amendment to protect marriage."

Republican pollster Whit Ayres acknowledged religious conservatives are discouraged about several issues this fall, but "are they so discouraged they're going to participate in any movement to have Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi run the country? No."

….

Both the pro- and anti-ban campaigns in Colorado declined to comment on how the Haggard case might affect voting on the measures. A Colorado College political science professor, Bob Loevy, suggested there could be a burst of support for the marriage ban if voters felt the accusations against Haggard were timed to sway the referendums.

Referring to conservative voters in Colorado Springs, Haggard's hometown, Loevy said: "They don't get disenchanted easily."

That is where there is a fundamental misunderstanding. People may be disappointed in the man, but that does not shake their other beliefs or principles. I warned that I did not think the Foley matter would have the effect that the perpetrators thought it would. I don't think this will have the effect they think either. The people who pushed these stories hoped they would suppress votes. They may well do the exact opposite. The fact that the candidate running in Foley's place is in a statistical dead heat with the Democratic candidate should have warned the people pushing this last scandal. That seat was supposed to be a dead loss because of Foley. That isn't happening, is it?

See La Shawn Barber for another perspective.

Politics, Religion | Gaius Friday, 3 November , 2006

By TC@LeatherPenguin, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 6:54 pm

Sorry, I live here in godless NYC… someone needs to give me a reason to care about this.

Who IS this Haggard guy, anyway? I mean Falwell, Robertson, that salt and pepper haired nut who used to speak in tongues and Jerrry Lee Lewis’s cousin… at least I could place them. But this guy draws a complete blank from my brainpan.
By Gaius, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 7:00 pm

That seems to be the consensus across the board pretty much. The media has given him a promotion, apparently.
By Nell, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 8:13 pm

Yep, I know my evangelicals, but I’ve never seen his face or heard his name before. Maybe he’s the only one they could entrap in time.
By Sheila, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 8:32 pm

Sadly, this is a real black eye for our side. Unfortunately, they wouldn’t be able to entrap him if he hadn’t done something wrong. You don’t buy crystal meth by accident! Honestly–would YOU know who to call for crystal meth? I promise you, I don’t! And even if he says he only got massages by the male hooker, why would he pick something that LOOKS as bad as choosing to get massages by a male prostitute in a hotel room? There are licensed professional masseurs who could do the same job in an above-board way in a more suitable setting. Obviously the prostitute has some problems with the truth, but I would not necessarily have high standards for what a prostitute says. The excuses of Reverend Haggard just don’t pass the smell test. The way he’s handling this is just going to make it drag on longer and be that much more of an embarrassment before the election.
By jpe, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 8:33 pm

Like I said, proof: meet pudding.
By Donna, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 11:03 pm

“But in this case the story was the accusation itself”

So true, so sadly true, Gaius.
By denise, Saturday, 4 November , 2006 @ 9:55 am

I am a conservative Christian. Hypocrisy happes!!! It happens on both sides of the political divide.
I am disappointed in Foley, Tedd and ALL others in the church and out that don’t live the way we should. I am disappointed when Michael Moore , Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy preach about issues one way, but only up and until it actually affects their lives, profits, etc. I am disappointed in myself sometimes too. I am very disappointed in the Hypocrisy of the Mainstream Media…day after day.
In spite of all these many disappointments, I WILL vote on Tuesday. I will vote a straight Republican ticket because their ideals, policy, philosophy most closely match mine. I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, a strong military (and supporting them), judges who don’t make laws, traditional marriage and the right to life for our unborn.