"Feeding Frenzies"

The term 'feeding frenzies' in the press refers to situations where a candidate's character is in question due to a scandal. The press is seen as a screening committee and has an obligation to reveal everything possible about a candidate. The belief in these 'feeding frenzies' is that the although policy and issues change the character of a candidate does not; the private character can reveal public action. The consequences of these 'feeding frenzies' are: a distrust between politicians and the press, dissuading strong candidates, denying voters' a voice and filling the media with trivial discourse. I strongly disagree with the idea the private character of a candidate always dictates public action. The perception of what is acceptable and not in someone's life is of much debate in the United States. I stand with the more progressive view that what someone does in their private life does not mean it will correlate to what they can do as a politician. There are certain issues where hypocrites are found where I believe it does correlate because one can then judge that politician for 'playing into politics' rather then being authentic. An example of this is when a strong typically Republican proponent of gay marriage/gay rights is outed or even worse found with a gay prostitute. To me this instance says he does not actually believe in the public policy he is promoting thus is not being real to the American people. On the other side I do not see someone committing adultery as a reason not to vote for a candidate. The only ones who can judge what someone did in a relationship are the two people actually in the relationship. A candidate can have an issue with their intimate relationships I do not believe that means it will translate into their career as a politician.