Seeking opinions: should media do background checks to find controversy in even feel good stories?
That's the debate that's been going on in Iowa this week after the Des Moines Register, when profiling a 24-year-old who had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars (now millions) for an Iowa Children's Hospital, decided to include in that profile a reference to 2 offensive tweets he had made 8 years prior when he was a 16-year-old sophomore, referencing the Tosh.0 show on Comedy Central.
There's a lot more to this story, including the doxxing of the reporter himself for even more offensive tweets he had in his past (he's since been fired), but the Des Moines Register has doubled down and defended its background check practice (claiming they did it for 'the public good' and that readers insist on 'the whole story') and the editors that had approved the story are keeping their jobs unscathed. They've said very little about the hypocrisy of doing such thorough checks on the subjects of their stories but not on their own reporters.
What's everybody's thoughts on this practice? I can maybe see why you would do it on certain types of stories/subjects, but let's say someone saves a bus full of Girl Scouts from a fiery accident. Before writing that story, should the newspaper spend a bunch of time digging into the past of the rescuer to find out if they've ever done anything controversial? 
For good measure, another ironic twist: Anheuser-Busch was originally heavily involved in the fundraiser, but backed out on parts of it after the tweets came out. Internet sleuths dug into it and found that Anheuser-Busch was, ironically, a sponsor of Tosh.0, the very show the kid quoted. They're holding him accountable for quoting a show they themselves sponsored...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Anybody digging into my past would find plenty of crumbs under my rug. I don't present myself as a great man of virtue, that's for sure. I try, though. 
