What kind of country would it be if news that could potentially be very important was shielded from the eyes of the public? It all starts with covering up an affair, but then it progresses to not reporting something of slightly more significance, and eventually we will be living in a country where the press shields the public from all the important facts they must consider when they go to elect their public officials
Knowing that the affair took place with a member of the Mayor's staff makes this news more important than if it took place with a man from outside her office. In reporting this news, many more questions will be asked of the Mayor and more facts will come out of the investigation. If the man she was having an affair with was given a job over more qualified applicants because he was in a relationship with the Mayor, the public may decide that the Mayor is putting her needs over the needs of the town. The best man or woman should be hired for the job, not the applicant who is sleeping with the Mayor. .
Not only could this man of been hired just because of the affair, but he may not be performing at work to the best of his potential, and the Mayor could be lenient towards him because of their relationship. Would you be afraid of losing your job is your boss was your lover? Clearly the answer is no, and because he has job security he may not be working with the same intensity as the rest of her staff. These are questions that need to be asked, but the town will never know to ask them unless I report on the affair.
In the brief time I was unsure of what to do with the newly learned information, I considered the arguments for the editor who decides to cover up the affair and not publish a revelation of this situation. After some consideration, I determined that their best argument to not print this news is not nearly as convincing as the reasons this news should be published.
