Last week, Sandy Davidson, a professor at the School of Journalism, spoke about politics in the media. She discussed how journalists should handle the current economic crisis and questioned "how far is too far" when it comes to investigating and publishing information about politicians. 

How should journalists respond to the economic crisis? Most Americans are aware that what is happening to our economy (this "crisis") is not a good thing. Why try to hide the facts? I believe that as journalists, we should be as direct and straightforward with the issues as we possibly can. Journalists cover depressing issues all the time. Depressing issues are what make the news; just because this issue might be affecting us more directly or more personally than others (i.e: the tsunami) doesn't mean that more of the facts should be hidden from the public. It should give us more of a reason to reveal and report on the information that's out there. 

So how far is too far when it comes to reporting on politicians? Obviously some things in their personal lives do make a difference, such as background, views, etc. But how many more times do we need to hear about Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter? Is that really newsworthy or just unnecessary gossip? It comes down to essential details versus pointless information. We do not need nor should we want to know every single detail of political candidates lives. Important facts should be making the news, not repeated, annoying controversy (i.e: Rev. Wright.) Voting records, platform details, and experiences should be making the news when it comes to reporting on politicians, not unnecessary details used as libel against each candidate.