The Haggard effect

June 23rd, 2008, 4:47 pm · 5 Comments · posted by Jeff Thomas

The news of his mere presence in town is cause for more than 100 reader comments. It’s the No. 2 story at gazette.com today. Imagine if Ted Haggard had said something beyond his refusal to say anything.

For a lot of people, the mention of Haggard’s name is an invitation to revisit, at length, the glass-house drama of his ouster from New Life Church. At the same time, no other subject inspires so many people to write about how much they don’t care.

You can argue he’s old news. You can argue he deserves to be left alone. You can argue it’s not fair to the New Life community to keep bringing it up. But what you can’t argue is that Ted Haggard does not still stir deep passions among believers and nonbelievers alike. And the fact that he’s back in Colorado Springs, apparently permanently, is news.

Still, at some point the media — including the Gazette — need to give the man and his family some space. Just because Haggard at one point was a compelling national story, it does not necessarily follow that he remains a compelling national or even local story, or that he ought to be subject to media scrutiny that never wanes. Assuming he doesn’t start a new church or something equally public in nature, the next step for the media is the awkward, but necessary, disengagement with Haggard.

Share and Enjoy:

Posted in: judgment • people

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About this blog

The Newsroom is a place where Gazette readers and editors can interact. You may e-mail a question or comment about the Gazette to any editor by clicking on his or her name in the list below. You may submit a response to any editor's post by clicking on the "comments" links at the end of each post. We invite your participation, but remember: This is a public place and others are watching. The Gazette reserves the right to alter or remove any contribution it finds inappropriate. When you post a comment, you signify your acknowledgement of these terms.

Stuff we've talked about

Gazette editors

Jeff Thomas is the editor. He is responsible for the news that appears in the Gazette, in print and online.

Larry Ryckman is the managing editor. He oversees our reporting teams and the news published at gazette.com.

Dena Rosenberry is the section editor. She coordinates the production of the printed Gazette.

Jim O'Connell is the sports editor. He is responsible for all sports news coverage, online and in print.

Stuart Wong is the director of photography, responsible for all news images that appear in print and as part of local coverage at gazette.com.

Joanna Bean is the Resources team editor. Her team covers business, utilities, transportation and outdoor recreation.

Joel Millman is a the public affairs team editor. He supervises coverage of government and public safety.

Warren Epstein is editor of the entertainment team. He is responsible for arts, food, and other entertainment coverage.

Barb Cotter is the team editor in charge of education coverage, religion, health and Side Streets.

Smackermack says:

June 24, 2008 at 6:00 am

This comment section is now very much out of control. Personal attacks on posters flying everywhere.

Please do something about it!!

When there was no comment from Mr. Haggard, then the story should have stopped there. The rehashing of old news was unnecessary, and I wonder what the true motivation was in this.

Jeff Thomas says:

June 24, 2008 at 10:39 am

Josh,
The “judgment” tag refers to editorial judgment — the judgment editors apply when deciding how to report news. It’s not a comment on Haggard.

Mack,
Sources get to decide whether to comment. Editors get to decide whether to publish. You get to decide whether editors make the right decision. In this editor’s view, Haggard’s return to Colorado Springs, apparently to take up residence again, is newsworthy and deserves to be published. When that decision is made by editors, fairness dictates that the subject be given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Haggard declined, as is his right. His decision to say nothing needs to be reported, so that readers understand he was given the opportunity, but that doesn’t mean Mr. Haggard has control over whether the news gets reported. As I wrote in the original post, now that Haggard’s return has been reported, the media need to think about how newsworthy he remains.

June 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm

It was reported. But the rehash of old news is exactly that old news.

Would you do it if some other citizen who disgraced his place of business returned to the Springs you would do the same? And would you rehash the old news that led to his downfall?

He is now a private citizen and needs to be left alone. This is just my opinion.

June 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

Mack,

Yes, I think I would — if the circumstances that led to that person’s departure were, themselves, newsworthy at the time. And yes, in order to demonstrate why it is worth the coverage upon that person’s return, we would have to recap what made the person so noteworthy in the first place.

If Ted Haggard embarks on a life of selling insurance or writing books or building houses, I can’t see much reason for continued Gazette coverage. If he returns to the pulpit, however . . . .