HOIST ON THEIR OWN PETARD:

Chicago Writer Quits For Sex Conduct (AP, 9-15-02)

Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene resigned after acknowledging he engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a teenage girl, the newspaper said Sunday.

In a note on the paper's front page, editor Ann Marie Lipinski said Greene, 55, acknowledged the sexual conduct with a girl in her late teens whom he met in connection with his column.

"Greene's behavior was a serious violation of Tribune ethics and standards for its journalists," Lipinski said. "We deeply regret the conduct, its effect on the young woman and the impact the disclosure has on the trust our readers placed in Greene and this newspaper."

To his credit, Mr. Greene did resign, rather try to defend the indefensible. On the other hand, the good folks at the Tribune owe their readers an explanation. Perhaps someone there can explain why Mr. Greene's case was so different than this one, No Case For Impeachment (Editorial by the Chicago Tribune, December 19, 1998):

From the beginning, our editorial concern in the Clinton-Lewinsky episode has been to see a sense of proportion maintained. "What's it worth to get Clinton?" we asked repeatedly, as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr hauled in Monica Lewinsky's mother to put the squeeze on her daughter, as he subpoenaed Secret Service agents, as he challenged the posthumous validity of the lawyer-client privilege.

The issue, in our view, was never simply what it was legal to do in pursuit of Clinton, but what it was wise to do. And too much that has been done, we regret to say, has been terribly unwise. But nothing that has been done to this point is as unwise as what the House of Representatives will do if it votes to impeach the president.

That we stand this morning on the verge of a presidential impeachment -- for only the second time in our nation's history -- is evidence of how utterly the sense of proportion has been lost.

The first time a president was impeached -- Andrew Johnson in 1868 -- it arose out of actions he took in the wake of the Civil War, actions having to do with the terms of Reconstruction and the political status of newly freed blacks and rebellious whites in the restored union. Even if the case ultimately was meritless, it at least was about a matter of real moment.

In the current instance, the impeachment turns on whether Bill Clinton, in a lawsuit of dubious merit but indubitably mischievous intent, lied about a tawdry, illicit -- but consensual -- sexual affair with another adult.

The issues in the two instances are not even close to being of the same gravity, and any member of the House who dares suggest they are deserves the contempt of his constituents today and of history in the future.

What standard did they apply when they determined that one tawdry, illicit affair rendered Bob Greene unfit to continue in his job as a mere columnist and impacted the trust of readers in their newspaper, while Bill Clinton's tawdry, illicit affair was compatible with his staying in the presidency and did not have a similarly deleterious impact on the trust of their readers in his leadership? Does the failure of the Trib to see that Mr. Greene's transgression is of only the same gravity as Mr. Clinton's (perhaps lesser, if he didn't perjure himself and obstruct justice) warrant our contempt today and of history in the future? Or do they deserve contempt for that unfortunate editorial and owe an apology to those who sought to treat Bill Clinton as they themselves subsequently treated Bob Greene?
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 16, 2002 12:17 AM