Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Dina Matos McGreevey Talks to Oprah

There comes a time where it is necessary for a journalist to ask the perhaps obvious question: Is this story actually important to my readers? Dina Matos McGreevey's appearance on Oprah yesterday prompted this blogger to repeatedly ask that question.

Matos McGreevey appeared on the talk show to discuss her new book "Silent Partner: A Memoir of My Marriage." It chronicles her relationship with former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, her reaction to his disclosure of an affair with a former aid and his subsequent resignation in 2004. The talk show host, not surprisingly, peppered Matos McGreevey with questions about her sex life with the now openly gay former governor and other topics of interest to her and to the millions of women who watch her everyday. Matos McGreevey, for better or worse, came across as a naive and somewhat bitter soon-to-be-ex-wife as she methodically discussed her book.

The former New Jersey first lady certainly suffered greatly from the governor's resignation and the very public scandal that ensued. Both Matos McGreevey and McGreevey, however, continue to engage in a very public PR campaign as their contentious divorce plays out in the media. The New York Post, for example, reported late last month Matos McGreevey strongly objected to a nude photograph McGreevey and his partner Mark O'Donnell had placed in their home. She confirmed her position to Oprah.

"It's another example of his poor judgement," Matos McGreevey said. "It's not Michelangelo. It is a 55 by 60 photograph of a nude male."

Matos McGreevey certainly has every right to tell her side of the story. But her book tour, combined with the release of McGreevey's own account last September and the former couple's public divorce, raises questions about intent. These developments certainly provide journalists and editors with an endless supply of sensational headlines. But the question remains as to the personal necessity to generate such headlines at the expense of other stories that most may argue are more important to cover.

No comments: