The Arnold Schwarzenegger affair: An issue of privacy

The Times on Tuesday broke the news that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had fathered a child out of wedlock more than a decade ago with a member of his household staff. The original story and subsequent coverage of the revelation and of Schwarzenegger's separation from his wife, Maria Shriver, have provoked vigorous online comment and debate.

One of the themes has centered on The Times' decision not to publish the names of the woman or child in order "to protect their privacy."

Among the comments from readers regarding that decision: 

From Nick -- Why does the L.A. Times think that "the other woman" deserves anonymity?  After ten years working around Ms. Shriver and her children, it seems to me that she's culpable and deserves to be exposed to public contempt.

From SooZeeQ -- Why do we have to know who he had the child with?  It does not matter! What purpose would it serve except to hurt the child? Why does the public believe that they are entitled to know things that are none of their business?

Other readers wondered why The Times offered what they saw as "partial" reporting: publishing the news of the affair, yet not disclosing certain details. And some asked why other media had chosen to name her.

For the Los Angeles Times, Editor Russ Stanton explains that "the public has a legitimate interest in the behavior of someone who held high office in this state and is likely to remain prominent for a long time. Schwarzenegger's conduct is what was newsworthy."

"In some circumstances," Stanton adds, "it might be necessary or appropriate to reveal the identity of a politician's mistress. In this situation, we thought it was not. We hewed to the principle of protecting the identity of an innocent child. To have identified the mother would, in effect, have been to identify the child. Different media companies have different standards. We will stick by ours, regardless of what others do."

-- The Office of the Readers' Representative

 

Comments

[Anne]

I am sickened to hear that other news agencies/print media have chosen to report the name of the woman involved. No matter how you feel about her, Arnold, or their behavior, this child doesn't deserve the ramifications that are coming his way now that his identity is known. Compassion...it is an emotion that is lacking in most of society.
I pray that his family is able to get him the emotional/psychological help he will need to get him through this difficult time in his life.

[Michael Fritsch]

I agree with SoozeeQ, what Arnold did is no business of the public,this is a story that was bought up along time ago..no the media take any news story and beat the truth out of it.

[Stephan Pickering/Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham]

Shalom & Erev tov: the Times has, in fact, alone among the mediasaurs of Horrorwood, chosen ethics above expediency. I believe the child is going to be facing potential danger; his name has not, yet, been revealed (even in Europe), but his mother's identity is everywhere, even where she has lived in Bakersfield (hardly a bastion of privacy and intellectuality, considering its decades of gunfighter nation virulent racism). I also believe that 1) IF there is genuine love between Mr and Mrs Schwarzenegger; and 2) IF he has truly repented and atoned IN PRIVATE to her, and to his children, and is willing to abandon the game-playing masques he has erected (she did, after all, have wonderful children with him)...then 3) there is the possibility they can re-build their lives together. But this is THEIR lives, not mine, not the media's, not the vampyres who feed on voyeurism. He paid child-support for the young boy (I assume he is still paying), and (although I do not know) I assume he will, as well, take some sort of role in the boy's growing. But, his life is in potential danger because his mother's identity is everywhere in the media.
Mr & Mrs Schwarzenegger: Tzeth'a LeShalom VeShuvh'a LeShalom...go in peace, return in peace.
STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham

[Lucho Prugue]

It is unfortunate that the only victims of this issue are the children (Maria's and the one out of wedlock). They are already going through very difficult times. I hope the media will help them to make it less stressful and more humane.

Let's flip the page and leave them alone. It's not OUR business... Kids are entitled to privacy and respect too!

Also, the media should stop printing photos of the mother - with the boy's face air-brushed... I fail to understand the logic of this. Whoever sees the photo - clearly reflecting the mother's face - and knows her - will know who the child is too. What was MSNBC thinking? Respecting the boy's identity? THINK before printing...

[Megan]

I agree wit LA times that it is proper and better not to identify the mother, for it would mean identifying the innocent child. Arnold Z. committed mistake and who does not. At this time he must have regretted what he did but what done is done. As God said who ever did not commit mistake can throw or cast the first stone to the erring woman. No one did. What is worthy to note is that Arnold Z. is acting on his fathering instinct on trying to give the boy a decent home with his mom. He is not living with her nor having an affair with her anymore and at this point that's the best he could do. With regards to his present family he has a lot of apologizing to do, to walk upright for them and hope that someday forgiveness will take place in their heart and heal.

[tony]

We seem to be outing men and protecting women more and more these days. Women can do no wrong. She is an adulterous women and SHOULD be named. Women dress more provocatively with deep plunging necklines, form fitted tops and even shorter bottoms. No one dares mentions inappropriateness of dress especially in the work place. Just look at some of the weather news women to highlight my point.

Media implies it is the mans fault for looking yet it is the women who bend over exposing their breast "accidentally". I had a g/f once get angry at me for "looking". I took her by the hand followed the woman and and said to the woman, excuse me, my g/f wants to tell you something. My g/f stuttered and pulled away. I explained if she has something to say, say it to the source of the problem that is bothering her. She declined.

There are consequences for your actions. Slim bag Arnold is finally paying for his. But the media today, will go after men, smearing them in the paper or on TV, and offer the women BIG $$$$ for a story or asking them to pose for Playboy for even bigger $$$$$$$$$ payout. (Obviously not in this case.)

Men are sexual beings. Most women can take it or leave it.
It is the same view points when a man is caught "cheating". No one asks if the woman is asexual, frigid, or uses her sexuality as manipulation. When taking marriage vows the couple promises to love honor and cherish, forsaking all others. It does not say, that either party must go without companionship because the other party doesn't honor the "love" portion of their vows.

Women have the right to refuse to be intimate. (today she can have her husband arrested) She does not have the right to mandate her husbands sexuality. When I got married I promised to be faithful. I did not promise to give up intimacy. Women think they own the intimacy part of a marriage and it all revolves around them. Sorry babes, only if you married a wimp. I as a man am entitled to a healthy sex life, hopefully with you, but you shall never control it and deny me companionship. I never agreed to that.
Maybe Maria had some issues.

[Startha Mewart]

Privacy? Since when? Schwartnegger and Shriver are public figures. As for that woman who appeared to gives a whole new meaning to the movie title "Maid in Manhattan)? I say that if the babymama wasn't ashamed to be in an adulterous relationship and go so far as to have a child by someone else's husband (while she was married to someone else yet!), then she shouldn't be ashamed to be named! She should've thought of that before she took up with Ah-nold! As a woman who had a husband cheat on her, I am sick and tired of the tramps and homewreckers being 'protected' and celebrated, and the philanderer husbands being excused. Never mind the bit about gays destroying the sanctity of marriage...seems to me some straights are doing a fine job of doing that already!

[Startha Mewart]

and to add insult to injury? She continue to be employed under the very woman whose husband was doing the cheating? No, I got no sympathy for that mistress whatsoever. She deserves HEAPS of criticism rained on her because she knew what she was doing and didn't care who she was hurting! Arnold was bad enough but to me that other woman was worse.

[christina113]

What I think is the most astonishing in this case is how much the media assumes we give a crap about any of this. When I first heard the news, I said, "Huh." and moved on. The media needs to do the same. This is not surprising considering how often they misjudge our interest level.

[AimeeX]

Schwarzenegger's conduct is newsworthy, therefore by association all the adults connected with his story are newsworthy. The news source should always reveal the mistress's identity, including photos, and all details regarding the affair, excepting children's identities. It's not part of the journalist's job to protect the privacy of adults involved. Just the opposite. The reporter's job is to investigate, uncover and reveal all facts with pertinent details. Any agency practicing selective reporting and concealing information from the public is not a valid news source. This is censorship; journalists subject the story to their own code of ethics, policing and parenting what they personally think the public should see and know, when the very purpose of media is to expose the information, discover and publicize the hidden secret things, and with great enthusiasm. The statement that revealing the mother's identity would identify the child is illogical. So will the agency conceal the identity of every person in the news who has children??

[Rocco]

Before we feel too bad for the child, let's keep in mind that the kid effectively won the California Lottery this week.

Now the fact that his parents are lowlifes of the highest order is another matter.

[studio exec]

Arnold and his mistress should have thought about the consequences of their actions when they having sex. Whether the child deserves exposure or humiliation is not the issue. His mother and Arnold were irresponsible and unfortunately he has to pay just like them. To think that he could be kept secret all his life is ridiculous. Obviously, his mother and Arnold were delusional as was Maria Shriver. The Times needs to expose the story because liars do not deserve special treatment regardless if they are movie stars or daughters of politicians.

[janeyre]

Just wondering... What information did the Times provide, when they did Tiger Woods story?

[mlrrbs]

The LA times is trying to close the barn door after the horses have escaped, but they have the right to print or not print what ever they choose. Privacy has never been protected, They want to protect the mistress son but who is protecting maria's children, after all thier identity was known the minute thier father name was printed and the scandal broke. Neither Arnold or his Mistress were thinking of the children when they were caught up in the moment, or were they really stupid enough to think that no one would ever know. It is very sad and unfortunate that the children are the ones that end up paying for the low morales and bad choices of the adults.

[Big Jim Slade]

The Times/Tribune hypocrisy on "privacy issues" is downright laughable.

Lest we forget, let's refresh on exactly how Barack Obama became US Senator seven years ago. The Times owner (Tribune) found a Democratic hack judge in LA to open up SEALED divorce records of his opponent, Dan Ryan.

"Ryan married actress Jeri Ryan in 1991; together they have a son, Alex Ryan. They divorced in 1999 in California, and the records of the divorce were sealed at their mutual request.

Five years later, when Ryan's Senate campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. On March 3, 2004, several of Ryan's GOP primary opponents urged release of the records.[5]

Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records public, but not make the custody records public, claiming that the custody records could be harmful to their son if released. On March 16, 2004, Ryan won the GOP primary with 36 percent to 23 percent against Jim Oberweis who came in second.[6] Obama won the Democratic primary, with 53 percent to 23 percent against Dan Hynes, who came in second.

On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans' divorce records should be opened to the public, and ruled that a court-appointed referee would later decide which custody files should remain sealed to protect the interests of Ryan's young child.[7]

The following week, on April 2, 2004, Barack Obama formally established his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats not to inject them into the campaign.[8]

The Ryan campaign characterized Obama's stance as hypocritical, because Obama's alleged backers had been emailing reports about the divorce records prior to Judge Schnider's decision."

And yet The Times wonders why 500,000 subscribers are gone...

[claudine willis]

About Arnie~~When you are in the national spotlight and there's a camera behind every bush, you'd better not pee in the bushes.

[Bigjimslade]

This is a joke. Didn't the Times/Tribune go to court to open Dan Ryan's sealed divorce records?

[temporarycalifornian]

Privacy? Compassion? Come on! Arnold and Maria are high profile, public figures. To just ask for "privacy and compassion" when just the day before they were whoring themselves out in public life? Not.

When someone, such as Ah-nold, takes the oath of office, any office, he opens his personal life up to everyone. If we, as a society, can't expect a public official (Governor of California!!??) to be honest and ethical in his own, personal, familial relationships, how on earth can we give him the benefit of the doubt as to how he would treat the nameless, faceless masses? Come on, he exposed himself as a scumbag and a cheat. He can't be trusted at any level.

In regard to the maid, the homely, pathetic, uneducated, probably illegal mexican. If you crawl into bed with the husband and father of the household you work for, you're just as much a cheating dirtbag as he is. The ONLY innocent in this whole picture is that child.

[Bill]

My deepest compliments to the LA Times for having integrity and compassion.

From the first announcement of the story, I was deeply hurt for all parties involved and prayed that the news media would step away from "scandal" and care about the parties involved.

Thank you for modeling this.

[Raj]

Behavior of public officials do matter because they make decisions that affect everyone they represent. When Arnold has lied to his own family for many years, once wonders how Arnold reached all his decisions for the public. What kinds of compromises he made during such decision times do matter. There is no privacy when one comes out to serve the public. The public has evert right to know how they lead private lives. The character of a man/woman is sum total of all actions they have taken in the past. If Arnie was still an actor, these wouldn't have mattered. Since he was the Governor of California, it does matter. Public humiliation is the best course for other public officials who hid from the public.

[Ankhorite]

Mr. Stanton needs to re-think this. The identity of this particular mistress is relevant to the public weal. Without her name, how can we know:

a. whether she lived in the Governor's Mansion at taxpayer expense;

b. whether she was paid for her housekeeping services with taxpayer funds;

c. whether Schwarzenegger has provided sufficient child support to meet California's minimum standards for a man of his inome;

d. and -- not directly a matter of law or public policy, but of keen interest regarding his character -- did Schwarzenegger raise this son with his other children? Was this son given the same advantages? Or was this son shunted to the servants' quarters while the lucky children basked in the sunshine of public acknowledgment and the open love of both parents? And I don't CARE if those "servants' quarters" are a lovely suburban home -- it's not the same as the standard of living given Schwarzenegger's other kids.

I'm sorry for her son, but the first three questions require her name.