WITH THE GARY Hart/Donna Rice scandal now a week old, it is time to reevaluate the numerous accusations of misconduct that have been levelled since the story broke, in particular those which called into question the responsibility of the press.

The scandal that ran its course with wildfire quickness promises to raise questions for a long time to come. Almost as soon as The Miami Herald reported the liason between Gary Hart and model Donna Rice, Hart countered by questioning the Herald's handling the story. Hart claimed, among other things, that the Herald's surveillance of his townhouse was slipshod and that no attempt was made to interview those involved.

Now that Hart has dropped out of the race the focus of debate has shifted from the nature of his involvement with Rice to the press' right to air the dirty laundry of political candidates. With Hart's fall, the press will have to consider seriously what type of attention it should direct to the personal lives of other candidates.

As long as men and women engage in politics there will be rumors of sexual misconduct. Should the press scrutinize them as it did the Hart scandle, or should the press, as it did when confronted with rumors about Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, discretely divert its eyes?

What arguements on the subject have so far overlooked is the role that the public has played in the unravelling of the Hart scandal. Ultimately, both the press and the candidates that it covers are answerable to a public with very definite ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. One may argue that the private behavior of a political candidate is immaterial to his public performance in office. Yet the candidates themselves use their private lives as selling points in glossy TV ads featuring their homes and families. So long as the public remains interested in candidates' characters, it is the duty of the press to report both sides.

This is not to say that the public was necessarily delighted with The Miami Herald's handling of its coverage. Reporters who hide in bushes smell to us of sleaze; we hope that in the future such callow tactics will not be repeated, and that newspapers will take time to make sure that their stories are accurate before publishing.

Nevertheless, once the information of Hart's misconduct was known, to bury the story would have been an insult to the voting public. Representative democracy relies on the free and accurate dissemination of information; the press whenever possible should avoid passing prior judgement on what the public does and does not need to know. "Hear no evil, see no evil," may be appropriate for monkeys, but not for a democracy.

It is easy to say that Hart's private life is irrelevant to his viability as a candidate; but so long as candidates advertise their character as key selling points, the press must publish the negative facts as well as the positive ones.