MyMediaFeed

When South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford returned from his secret trip to Argentina, he surprised the world with a public confession regarding an extramarital affair. Though his confession was trashed by many respected figures in the media for being too detailed, Sanford may not have had any choice but to spill the beans before others did it for him. It seems that Sanford became aware that Columbia’s The State possessed emails between him and his lover, and that the newspaper intended to print them in the near future.  After The State printed the letters, its staff attempted to answer the most logical question: Why did it take so long, since they had the emails for almost a year?  According to a recent report, journalists for The State could not confirm the emails, or the story about the Argentinian lover, until Sanford went missing last week. The saga raises some interesting questions about how the media breaks news of scandal.

For more on the sultry emails, see the following video:

Discussion Questions:

1.  Should The State have broken the story sooner?  What could they have done earlier to confirm the details from the emails?  Should they have contacted Sanford when they received the emails?

2.  What constraints might newspapers face that new media news sources do not?  For instance, why might TMZ have broken the story sooner if they had the emails?

3.  What should be the protocol for major media sources when they receive possible evidence of a major story?  Did the editorial staff of The State do the right thing by holding onto the emails now made public?