Current coverage over recent party shots of Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin prompts the following question: Who would you rather have making important decisions at any point in time—a government leader enjoying some stress relief at one point in time or renowned teetotaler Donald Trump whose decision-making was questionable any time day or night?
Boris Yeltsin was a notorious drinker. Winston Churchill certainly consumed his share of liquor. God knows what Putin is doing. Just as anyone else, people in positions of power are entitled to their leisure time and pursuits. In fact, it’s critical to their overall emotional health and sound decision-making.
While I feel that country leaders should be held to a higher standard of accountability and responsibility than average citizens, calling out Marin’s actions with such gravitas seems sensationalistic when compared to the daily drubbing the world took while Trump was in power.
Unlike Trump, Marin has accepted responsibility for actions called into question. Notes Reuters in an August 23 article, “Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin on Tuesday apologised for a picture that emerged from a private party she had thrown at her official residence in July, following a public stir over her partying in the past week. On Monday, a drug test taken by the prime minister, one of the youngest world leaders, came back negative. It was taken to assuage concerns after video footage was published last week showing her singing and dancing with Finnish celebrities at another party…Finns have been divided over the premier’s behaviour, with some voicing support for the young leader for combining a private life with her high-profile career, while others have raised questions about whether her judgement would be impaired by her leisure activities.”
OK, so we have a possibly impaired government leader during a moment in time. With Trump, you can argue that his judgment was impaired 24/7, allegedly without consuming a drop of alcohol!
The current kerfuffle over Marin also brings up a question about the media coverage itself
Why does the media often pay as much attention to relatively inconsequential issues as major maladies? A partying politician and Trump’s arguably treasonous acts do not appear to be on the same level of importance, yet Marin’s possible faux pas took the top spot on the Google News feed the day the story broke.
While sensationalism has been part of the media for centuries, many of today’s media outlets—and personalities reporting “the news”—seem to be more invested in infotainment than journalistically sound stories. And that spans the continuum from far left to far right.
Add “fake news” into the mix, and you have the perfect storm of misinformation, disinformation, and a breakdown of trust. There is a clear place for opinion and entertainment, but this son of a city editor does not believe that place is hard news. I often wonder how many reporters today can write a truly objective news story regardless of personal beliefs and prejudices. And how many editors prioritize covering stories of the highest importance over those offering titillating sensationalism.
We need Walter Cronkite now more than ever. Notes an article on Cronkite.asu.edu: “As anchor of the ‘CBS Evening News,’ Walter Cronkite set the gold standard for broadcast journalism, shepherding the nation through President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Vietnam War and Armstrong’s walk on the moon.” Hopefully, students will emerge from Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication willing and able to bring that gold standard back to life in a meaningful way.
Gray Flannel Head 