State Sen. Roy Ashburn came out as gay six days after being charged with drunk driving. Media report he was arrested after leaving a gay bar.

By Christopher Meyers

“Wow.”

Repeat that eight or ten times and you get a sense of my reaction to the news of Sen. Roy Ashburn’s arrest and his eventual acknowledgement of his sexual orientation. Unlike those who are now saying they suspected for years, I was flabbergasted. His rigid rejection of any legislation that even hinted at being supportive of gay rights certainly had me whamboozled.

He has since argued, however, those votes were consistent with his conservative ideology and legislative record. While one might like a little less public/private schizophrenia, the “I’m just representing my constituents” claim at least borders on plausibility.

Ashburn, though, went much further, including being host for the 2005 Traditional Values Coalition rally at Patriots Park. I was at that rally and was subjected to one of the most disturbing hours of my life, with Louis Sheldon spouting vile and baseless claims about homosexuals’ lives, choices, and social agendas. And unlike Chad Vegas’ reaction, as reported in Wednesday’s San Francisco Chronicle, I found Ashburn an avid enthusiast for Sheldon’s revolting views. Hence, again, my amazement at this week’s revelations.

All of which takes me to the point of this column: Shouldn’t we, Ashburn’s constituents, have learned all this long ago? Where were our public watchdogs, the good men and women of the local Fourth Estate? Rumors have evidently been rampant for years, but until this week, not even a hint in news reports.

Mike Jenner, executive editor of The Bakersfield Californian, devoted his Sunday column to an explanation of why the newspaper didn’t report on Ashburn’s, at the time merely purported, sexual orientation. Responsible journalists, he argued, do not print rumors. Good for him. Good also for Californian columnist Lois Henry for having the journalistic courage to ask Ashburn point blank whether he was gay in an interview last summer. But his obvious dodge, his non-denial denial, should’ve lit a fiery blaze in the gut of any hungry reporter to investigate whether there was truth to the rumors.

Why didn’t The Californian (or any of the local television news teams) investigate? Jenner noted the paper holds a “high bar” for reporting on the private lives of public officials and in this case, “we didn’t see the relevance. I didn’t believe it was news.” Again, I congratulate him for that bar. A person’s sexual orientation — even a politician’s — is normally none of our dang business.

It becomes our business, though, when such private details are directly connected to the politician’s elected position and governing. Hypocrisy, at least of such a deep sort as Ashburn has displayed and on such a socially vital topic, is relevant and newsworthy. It undercuts our trust and makes us question his commitment.

Even more newsworthy, though, was Ashburn deceiving his constituents for political gain. He presented himself as both an advocate and a representative for traditional family values, all while living a radically different life. He strove, quite successfully, to have his constituents believe something about him he knew to be false; that is, he lied. And as numerous news interviews have revealed in the last few days, many — I dare say a majority — of his former supporters would’ve voted differently if they’d known he was gay, let alone if they’d known he lied to maintain political advantage.

If that’s not relevant and newsworthy, not much in political reportage is.

So what else might have motivated the media’s reluctance to investigate? They will have to answer for themselves, but here are my best guesses:

1. To report on it would’ve violated Ashburn’s privacy. Very true and I sorely wish news media were far more respectful of persons’ private lives. The reality, however, is the vast majority of news coverage violates people’s privacy. The question is always whether such violations are justified by other pressing concerns. The hypocrisy and lying noted above surely provide such justification here.

2. Sexual orientation is just too hot a topic to comfortably handle. Better just to avoid, news outlets may think, at least until it is brought forward for another reason — in this case the drunk-driving arrest.

3.  Despite being in his last year of a termed-out elected position, Ashburn remained a powerful representative of a large segment of Bakersfield’s conservative citizens. Taking him on was risky business.

4. Investigative reporting is expensive and local news organizations are just not in a position anymore to devote the kinds of resources necessary to do it well and ethically. Combine this with numbers 2 and 3, and you see how easy it would be to turn your attention elsewhere.

5. By all accounts, Ashburn is a good and kind soul and all but the most jaded reporter would balk at causing him pain.

All these are good explanations, but none are good, convincing reasons. The public is still deeply dependent on mainstream news media to get these kinds of stories and to get them right. We’re especially dependent on local news media — those in the best position to investigate and those with the greatest watchdog duty to do so. To our great detriment, they dropped the ball on this one.

Christopher Meyers, PhD, is vice president of the Bakersfield Express board and director of the Kegley Institute of Ethics at California State University, Bakersfield. He is editor of the new book “Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach.” The views expressed here are his own.