Any story that sells means that the advertisers have a field day.
Prior to the 2008 US presidential elections, Mr. Obama’s religion was questioned. There were claims that the former senator was a Muslim (Smith et. al., 2009). The media made this such a debate, so much so, he had to lay the issue to rest. Pundits viewed the scandal as a propaganda meant to derail his presidential ambitions then. The media have always capitalized on such scandals to cash in money (Smith et. al., 2009).
Although the issue of religion is a “public issue”, one wonders why it did not generate endless debates prior to the campaigns. For instance, does one have to account for their middle names? Such was the case with Obama’s “Hussein” middle name. Politicians, like the rest of us, deserve to a fair treatment by the media (Marion, 2010). Some scandals were able to expose the mistakes and ‘evil’ sides of the politicians; majority of them were ‘created’ by different media houses so that they could make more money selling the stories to curious citizens (Marion, 2010).
The pubic have a right to know the integrity of their leaders or would-be leaders; however, the politicians are entitled to their privacy. The media must ensure they expose only the scandals that touch of the politician’s integrity and efficiency concerning their public