ProPublica Editor Stephen Engleberg has a really interesting story up about the reporting choices involved in reporting on politician’s sex lives, including David Wu. Engleberg is a former editor at the Oregonian and has some insight on why the paper chose to cover—and not cover—scandals in the past. Check it out.

If you can’t handle reading that many words, there’s also this from The Onion:

Picture_9.png

Sarah Shay Mirk reported on transportation, sex and gender issues, and politics at the Mercury from 2008-2013. They have gone on to make many things, including countless comics and several books.

4 replies on “Behind the Reporting on David Wu and Other Sex Scandals”

  2. From the link – “Over the next few months, we heard other stories from other women. None was willing to go on the record. It appeared to us that Wu’s aggressive conduct with women may have continued deep into his adulthood. But we were unable to prove it.”

    In other words, ‘there were some rumors we were unable to verify to the standards of our publication and did not publish but I will go ahead and publish them here since an unnamed staffer now says he heard an unrelated but similar story on a voicemail once.’

    I am not defending Wu, I have no idea if he is a rapist, but the most recent Oregonian story seemed thinly sourced from the outset. I gather that they did not have the voicemail and were taking the confidential source on their word as to its contents but I do wish they would have at least had a quote with a detailed description as to what the woman actually said. I saw that they have a follow up story today about the aftermath focusing on the cost of the election and his pension. Where is the story about the police response to the accusations? Has the Oregonian or their confidential source gone to the police in California with the evidence? If the guy is a rapist he needs to go to jail, if he is not he deserves to be exonerated. Instead we get this backslapping from a past managing editor who now believes reporting on sex is in the public interest. Guess what buddy, it is not in the public interest if the sex was actually consensual or alternatively if a rapist goes free. A trial in the court of public opinion does not cut it.

  4. Man, you really hafta hand it to Whistle BlowHard – the knows how to stay on topic and get to the point.
    Good article.
    Hey Legal, you make some good points but you know where I stand. I wouldn’t want him representing me any longer whether it was consensual or not. The straw that broke the camels back…
    But it isn’t my district.
    See the Oregonian a couple days ago where they were asking local politicians views on the Wu scandal?
    Guess who was noticeably absent? Our man Sammy Boy! You know the Adams camp is happy this didn’t happen closer to the election.

Comments are closed.