Rumors have been flying that both France President Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife, singer/model Carla Bruni, have strayed. By American standards, things are pretty far along: Bruni is said to have fallen in love and moved in with popular French singer Benjamin Biolay. Meanwhile Sarkozy has supposedly taken up with right-wing politician (and former karate champion) Chantal Jouanno. 
But between strict national privacy laws and the notorious French indifference to the personal pecadillos of political figures, no one seems inclined to confirm these rumors, least of all, the French mainstream press.
The whispering, such as it is, is taking place in -- where else -- the blogosphere. Three French-language blogs are reporting on the supposed affairs, though the one I read did not seem to constitute confirmable information. Besides, why would a mainstream editor risk angering public figures to follow a story that does not, in the French version of politics, relate to the political? As the French themselves might say, "Ca ne fait rien."
Contrast this attitude with the United States, whose tabloid culture permits pusuit of almost any public figure. Ever since Presidential candidate Gary Hart challenged journalists to "catch him in the act" with
model Donna Rice, the personal lives of politicians have become fair game for former celebrity-chasing papparrazzi. The National Enquirer is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the John Edwards affair, a turn of events which must have mainstream editors of old spinning in their graves.
The cultural difference is clear. The French, as one reporter noted, believe public figures should be judged not on their "sentimental lives" but on their work. He observed that former presidents Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac both had mistresses without suffering any political fallout. Sarkozy is different: a highly public and flamboyant figure whose apparent need for the spotlight and lack of discretion might lead voters to conclude his private life has impeded his ability to fulfill his public duty.
Then again, it depends on how public he chooses to make his supposed affair, because this is not a story that will be printed (or confirmed) without Sarkozy's tacit approval. Not so in this country, where our journalists feel an almost sacred obligation to follow the rumor and pull the story out into the light of day. Their reasoning, which we have frankly provided for them, is that the private doings of public officials become our business when they take an oath to serve us.
Clearly, we have cultural differences with the French. A "man on the street" interview in Paris found that most people, whether disappointed or not (no one seemed particularly shocked), didn't automatically see a worrisome connection between the private activities of the first couple and the political necessities of the job. That view is anathema to many Americans, who hold that knowing how public (or spiritual) leaders conduct their private lives will tell us how honestly and effectively they will conduct their public ones. Viva la difference, one might say.
Of equal interest is what publishers, editors, and journalists feel needs to be reported. In France, the press tends to be in a laissez faire mode when it comes to covering the personal comings and goings and doings of the ruling class, a frame of mind not usually challenged by its readership. In the United States, scandal sells, especially scandals involving elected officials.
In the end, we may all agree that politicians are scoundrels but in France, that non-newsworthy item is greeted with a shrug; here, it's greeted with both righteous indignation and the sort of pruient interest that can earn a tabloid a top journalism prize.



Salon.com
Comments
It reminds me of a letter-writer to Ann Landers, who asked how she should go about researching her family tree. "Run for public office," was the reply.
It is a huge difference in attitude and priorities; probably the main reason why feminists are failing. They get off message holding on to backward religious--and they are religious--"boundaries."
A most relevant and intellectual post, Nikki; you're my hero!
Rated for civility.
Thoth: merci mille fois
R
When I read this story yesterday I thought about the judgement of Sarkozy, who married Carla - his 3rd wife? - within months of meeting her and how his lack of judgement in his love-life will be/is reflected in his lack of judgement in his political life.
Bill Clinton lied to Hilary always, and he felt no shame in lying to the American people who voted him into office. The personal is the political.
O'Reilly: of course you can
You have Bush, Clinton, and Carter, with the elder Bush and Reagan as at least nominal born againers.
It is almost like another third rail for American politics. Anyone that crosses the NRA is going to have trouble winning. And, as far as equal opportunity special interest politics, Israelis have more freedom to question Israel's policies than American politicians.
In fact, the US elected Cleveland and Harding in spite of widely spread rumors regarding illegitimate children. So we are getting less and less tolerant as a nation.
The French think we are idiots in this regard. They are right.
R
Quelle horreur!
my opinion.... the french are ahead in some ways, behind in others. what is their actual relationship? is it polyamorous, or a kind of partner arms race? if the public could get beyond 1dimensional stereotypes, now there would be something new.
American right wingers might be the lowest form or humanity imaginable.
Thanks for your excellent post!
Carla Bruni, prior to her marriage to Sarko, was what my late mother would call a "high-class whore", available to the highest bidder and only to a high-profile, wealthy man. In fact, it was expected that, should Sarko lose his re-election bid, not content to be plain Mme Sarkozy, she'd search for pastures new. What shocked the French at the time of his marriage, was that he actually married the mattress (hence, making a 'situation vacant' available).
The privacy laws in Europe not only govern elected officials, but also cover professional athletes and entertainment people. Basically, they say that the rich and famous are entitled to their privacy and the plebs aren't.
This has been successfully challenged recently in Britain, where a judge lifted the privacy veil on stories concerning the extra-curricular activities of two well-known soccer stars who liked playing away from their wives.
Sarkozy's got form too. The fact that his bit on the side is even more Rightwing than he is rather worrying, considering the political direction Europe seems to be heading at the moment.
I don't either.
I have my own fish, etc.
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
All I can say is that French people are very physically attractive, both the men and the women, the athletes, the entertainers. If there are going to be photos and stories all over the press, I would prefer seeing photos of attractive people......
What most bothers me, however, is the level of interest we take in scandalizing the private lives of public individuals. Without condoning their behavior, especially when the family or wife suffers (as does not seem to be the case with the Sarkozys), I still question how much I need to know from a "vigilant" (or maybe vigilante) media. American interest in what goes on in the bedroom is as creepy to me as trying to imagine what goes on in some people's bedrooms. Enough already.
Some of the most beautiful churches in the world still stand in France and in Europe in general. What we have here is not religious "observance;" it is malicious and stupid religious fundamentalism, anti-intellectualism and flat out anti-rationalism.
Are you saying that women/men who get many divorces are bad people/politicians? Are you calling the women who get divorced bad names?
Let's not compare ourselves to the French, currently it is embarrassing. Let's hope that one day we will think like French do; it is only civilized.
No, they don't.
You're jesting, correct? Egad. Shoot me.
I'm not sure I understand Thoth's point about feminists and boundaries. He claims that's why they're "failing." Are feminists failing? Are we a political party not on point, suddenly?
Hmm...yes, I suppose so. As women, we've been "failing" for a long, long time, considering it seems a faux pas to even consider yourself one. Were we "winning" at some point?
And I don't think it has jackshit to do with boundaries. I wonder how we can frame feminism so it sounds more....civil? Boundaries are not always religious. Boundaries are boundaries. Who is he to define their origin? And "boundaries" in quotes, to boot. Sure, those pesky little "boundaries."
But back to your piece, I agree re: prurient interest here, but I don't hold the French in any higher esteem re: how they hold their affairs. Liars and cheats are liars and cheats.
And I don't think they're all about the French shrug, or I wouldn't know about these affairs in the first place.
Yes, I'm disappointed when people conduct themselves "badly" in public or in private; when they risk hurting or embarrassing those with whom they've made some sort of compact (although embarrassment is a far milder consequence). But there is a tone of sanctimony in the approach we Americans take (just as there is frequently a tone of sophisticated superiority that Europeans take that doesn't always sit well with me) that bothers me. What are the "rules" for trusting our officials or "allowing" them to remain in office? Why do we impeach a President for lying about sexual affair (actually for parsing the meaning of "sexual relations") but we don't impeach a President for lying about WMDs? What kind of sense does that make? Do we honestly believe we are charged with judging other people according to a moral standard that apparently includes some kinds of adultery but not others, one that ultimately would prove to be far less dangerous than a lie that involves or risks the lives of others (ie, reasons to go to war).
In a perfect world, people would do right by other people. In this same world, I might choose to shield myself and my children from behavior I deemed distasteful without attempting to impose my values on others in their private lives. We don't live in a perfect world and we are not perfect beings. I may see behavior I wouldn't condone and live with it. But there are priorities to be made, judgments to be made about what we cannot, should not live with and boy, are we off the mark in this country.