DATE: Sunday, November 9, 1997              TAG: 9711070026

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J5   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM

                                            LENGTH:  100 lines

REPORT TO READERS HEILIG STIRS MORE TO-DO THAN POLLS

Love may be a many-splendored thing. But when a relationship hits the news pages, journalists better duck. And when it involves a respected person in the community who died a month earlier, the paper can't be surprised by accusations of ``sensationalism'' and ``sleaze journalism'' and ``insensitive.''

Those were some of the milder reactions from readers to the Oct. 29 story, ``Heilig's former love sues for a share of his estate.'' The story was about a lawsuit filed against the estate of Del. George Heilig Jr., seeking $1 million, a house in New Mexico and land in North Carolina.

The suit was filed by a woman who said she was Heilig's lover for the past two years. The relationship described in the lawsuit was spelled out in a good bit of detail in the story.

Nearly a dozen readers called or wrote to say they thought the story was inappropriate. Heilig ``made a mistake,'' said one woman who had worked for him, ``but to print it was a terrible thing. As editor, you should you be more responsible, and kind, about printing these stories. Like Vince Foster said, ruining people has become a sport.''

Asked another caller: ``Why would y'all do that?''

Why indeed? I put the question to staff writer Marc Davis, whose main job is to report on courts and lawsuits. Davis said that writing the story made him uncomfortable, ``but not so uncomfortable that it didn't make me realize the news value.''

First, he said, it was interesting from a legal point of view. Ever since the Lee Marvin palimony case, lawyers and claimants have been seeing how far they could ``push the edge.'' This case involved the companion of a public figure who was still married (divorce proceedings against him were not yet finalized) and didn't have a will.

Second, said Davis, and more compelling, were Heilig's two mysterious disappearances from Norfolk while he was serving as a delegate in the General Assembly. The first time, in 1995, ``his own law partners, including Paul Fraim, the mayor of Norfolk, didn't know if he was coming back or returning to the legislature,'' said Davis. ``And this was within days of his being re-elected.''

Heilig did return for the Assembly session, then disappeared again in June 1996. Responding to reports that he was living in New Mexico, the Republican party called for his seat to be vacated and a new election held.

The Pilot had a lengthy story earlier this year on Heilig's battle with failing eyesight, but it did not run a story when Heilig's wife filed for divorce. Divorces and estate suits aren't news, Davis said, just because they involve public figures. (Gossip columnists might dispute that!)

But this suit, he said, was different, involving a public figure thrust into the limelight by his disappearances. Still, Davis said, he and his editor insisted that the story not be played on A1 or even prominently on the local front. It was a two-column story at the bottom of the Hampton Roads section.

For the reasons cited above, I think this was a legitimate - if uncomfortable - news story. But some of the significance cited here was missing from the story. Had the impact on the General Assembly and party politics been spelled out more clearly, perhaps fewer questions might have been raised.

Perhaps not. It's difficult to report a story that touches on people's private lives and not feel . . . uncomfortable. Perhaps for that reason, another round of readers hailed Kerry Dougherty's Nov. 2 column, ``The Heilig maneuver - the scandal that will not die.''

But even that column stirred some controversy. ``The editorial page is not the place to pass judgment on people's private lives,'' wrote a Virginia Beach reader, who defended both Heilig and ``the other woman.''

What it comes down to is right to privacy vs. need to know. Did we need to know, after his death, that Del. George Heilig was living with another woman in New Mexico?

Probably not, if he had been more forthright about his residency and plans at the time. Accountability is not a minor consideration when a person is serving in an elected office.

Sadly, the result in this case is that an unfortunate set of events could become a ``final memorial'' for Heilig. That's what reader Michael Cox of Norfolk fears.

``Let George Heilig be remembered for the kindness he gave to his employees,'' wrote Cox, ``the generosity he rendered to needy causes and the lasting friendships gained during his quarter century of distinguished service to the City of Norfolk and his constituents.''

And it was (yawn) election week. By now you may have noticed that we just had an election and I'm not writing about the usual stuff - readers grumbling that the newspaper is liberal, biased, shouldn't be in the endorsement business, etc.

Sure, we heard some of the above, but relatively little. Reaction to the elections was almost as quiet as the polls were on Tuesday (though there was some lively discuss in the Pilot Online's TalkNet.)

In fact, I heard more to-do about the Heilig story and even about Monday's Focus piece on the Nixon tapes than about the elections. (The Nixon controversy: Why didn't we delete ALL the expletives, including those that took the Lord's name in vain?)

Says something about politics and polls and community interest.

Au shucks. Several readers following the trial and conviction of British au pair Louise Woodward posed two questions: What is an ``au pair''? And why didn't we explain the term?

Better late than never: An au pair is a young person from another country who exchanges room and board and weekly spending money for child care.

That definition comes from a past Pilot story. Others refer to au pairs as mother's helpers or live-in baby sitters.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu