The D.C. Madam List: Is It Our Business?

Mark your calendars: On May 4th – Friday – ABC's "20/20" will air a report on Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her clients. Palfrey is better known as the "D.C. Madam," and she has apparently run an escort service in the D.C. area for more than a decade. She has also reportedly handed her client list over to ABC News – a list that includes "people…at the Pentagon, lobbyists, others at the White House, prominent lawyers — a long, long list," according to Brian Ross.

And then there's "the women who work for the service [who] include university professors, legal secretaries, scientists, military officers." Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias has already resigned after being identified as a customer of the service.

It's important to note that Palfrey, who is under indictment and has vowed to call her clients at trial if necessary, insists that the service was legal. "She says it wasn’t prostitution, it was fantasy sex, legal sex," according to Ross. Which raises the question: If that's the case – admittedly a big if – is it our business?

Howard Kurtz put the question to Ross on Sunday's "Reliable Sources." "If a government official pays for this kind of service personally and has nothing to do with his job," he asked, "is there at least an argument that it's not news worthy and shouldn't be reported?"

Said Ross: "Well, I think there -- I think it is news worthy that there is this indictment. It's part of a Bush administration effort under the Department of Justice to crack down on prostitution and this is part of it. Tobias in particular, given his role as spearheading the Bush administration effort overseas to crack down on prostitution, seemed to us to be news worthy."

The last part of that argument has to do with hypocrisy – a concept that also pops up in the response to all this from liberal blogger Duncan Black.

"Let me say now that to the extent that this is consensual, legal, and doesn't involve gross hypocrisy of public figures and the agenda they advocate it's none of our business," he writes. "To the extent that such qualifications are met I hope it doesn't become our business."

The question for ABC News is whether or not to reveal the names on the list on Friday night – which, incidentally, falls during the sweeps period. "I'm not sure I would without a lot more reporting because careers are going to be destroyed when this list becomes public," Karen Timulty of "Time" told Kurtz.

In the end, it may not matter what the network does, since the list is likely to be made public in court proceedings. But there are apparently plenty of powerful people doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen. As the Post notes, "lawyers [are] calling around town trying to keep their clients' names out of public view."