Saturday, June 3, 2006

The fact that David S. Broder's column on Hillary Clinton ["The Shadow of a Marriage," May 25] was little more than an inartful contrivance to justify political voyeurism about the Clintons was evident from its headline. But once I realized that fully two-thirds of the column concerned Hillary Clinton's recent speech on energy policy, the sleaze factor was cinched.

Maybe Broder can explain what such a speech has to do with the state of the Clintons' marriage.

And for him to try to justify the column on the fact that the New York Times "sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One" only added a rare layer of irrelevant ooze.

Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing trend in which members of the media listen mostly to each other. Over the past few decades media standards have devolved to the point that reporters and columnists no longer interview newsmakers to discern the news but interview themselves to determine what's newsworthy. The mainstream media have moved from eschewing rumor and innuendo to reporting on what's in the tabloids. Now we have a columnist at a major newspaper justifying his coverage of an issue not on its newsworthiness or timeliness but because another mainstream paper addressed it first and created the all-important "buzz."

In the real world, just because the New York Times has decided that the state of Hillary Clinton's marriage is a hot topic doesn't necessarily make it so.

I read David Broder because I almost always value the depth of his political analysis. I realize that in this era of cable television and 24-hour news cycles the desire by the print media to be among the first to comment on the latest political "buzz" must be tempting.

Broder should continue to resist this temptation.

-- Vincent Cobb

Clinton

·

I never cease to be amazed that people worry about the state of the Clintons' marriage. Really, how is this any of our business? And why does it deserve space on the op-ed page?

I have no idea what kind of marriage the Clintons have, and I don't really care. What goes on between them is up to them. How can we, a public with about a 50 percent divorce rate, pass judgment on someone's marriage? As for Bill Clinton's indiscretions while in office, I felt that he kept his bargain with me, a voter, by being a good president. I can't comment on him as a husband since I'm not married to him.

I write this on my 15th wedding anniversary. And I have a radical idea: If Hillary Clinton decides to run for president, you write about her platform and ideas. What's off-limits? What she's wearing, how her hair is styled and the state of her marriage.

Let it go. Please.

-- Niki Mitchell

Washington