Contradictions vs. hypocrisy, prostitution and propriety

A few days ago while discussing the institutionalized adolescence of "entertainers" like Don Imus I cited Steven Stark's ">now-difficult-to-access essay from the Sept. 1994 Atlantic Monthly Magazine called "Where the Boys Are."

I didn't discuss it but Stark highlights what he identifies as contemporary journalism's adolescent attitudes to public figures, particularly those with actual authority.

Also in Journalism as currently practiced, reporters often set themselves up as passive observers of events and then spend much of their time identifying with those who exercise real power -- a point of view that is reminiscent of the way a young teenager views his parents. Moreover, if today's journalism has a driving principle , that principle centers on an obsession with hypocrisy. Journalism is about many things, but these days it is often about revealing that public figures are phonies. Covering Bill Clinton, or Prince Charles, or Michael Jackson, reporters frame their stories by saying implicitly, "These people aren't what they say they are. Look, they lied to you."

...

Political coverage tends to focus on gaffes, girlfriends, and youthful indiscretions while far more important, "adult" issues go underreported.

This attitude handily explains how on the one hand journalists could get their tightie-whities and granny-panties in such a bunch over Bill Clinton's semen stains while disregarding some fairly glaring, um, issues with the conduct (let alone the instigation) of an ongoing military conflict.

I'm therefore stepping into the issue of Deputy Secretary of State and director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Randall L. Tobias' resignation last week in the face of revelations that he booked $300/hour prostitutes escorts "Central American gals" for massages through the recently arrested Deborah Jeane Palfrey. The married Tobias' previous job in the Bush administration was "AIDS czar," in which position he pressed his position that faithfulness and abstinence were better tools than condoms for preventing HIV transmission.

There's certainly enough going on in that last paragraph to keep an army of Holden Caulfield's hands busy in their laptops for weeks. I decline to participate. Hiring prostitutes from a well-established madame, whether for massages or strap-on sex while promoting abstinence and faithfulness over safe sex practices is certainly hypocritical, and if his wife tripped him a the top of a set of stairs I'd say he had it coming. I'd rather look at some of the other elements in the case.

First of all, as a policy matter how effective can abstinence- and faithfulness-only programs be if not even the political appointee in charge is inclined to pursue it? One can hardly open a blog page these days without tripping over mention of Mathematica Policy Research Inc's finding that abstinence-only education has no effect on either the timing or the rate with which elementary middle-school students begin having sex. That's a classic journalistic "gotcha," whether adolescent or no. Fine, fine work, sure, and a worthwhile story, but also highly myopic in the sense that Stark emphasizes.

It's not unusual to get all snarky when the numbers of a high-level policy program don't add up. It's *certainly* not unusual to get all snarky about a high public official seeing prostitutes. But pickles on a stick, boys and girls, the policy didn't even work on Randall L. Tobias -- highly-trusted, Karl-Rove-vetted, Bush appointed, repeatedly-turned-to-White-House-silverback in charge of implementing it overseas to curtail HIV transmission! *That's* the story!

And I'm not just sayin' this time, I'm requesting: start writing about it.