greessay4
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 GREessay4
1/2
Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and
supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to
challenge your position.
***
There are two main problems with this assertion; one of them is in the logic of the statement
itself, and the other has to do with the practical effects of scandals in the modern world.
Although the vibrant interest that surrounds and defines scandals may seem to imply that they
galvanize public interest in a powerful and inimitable way, the truth is that their influence is not
generally useful or positive.
The first problem, the one dealing with logic, is in the dichotomy the assertion draws between
scandals and human beings. To imply a contrast between scandals and speakers and
reformers is to portray scandals as existing autonomously, in a vacuum, which is simply never
the case. The truth is that the scandals seen as usefulthat is, the kind dealing with political
or financial misconductare generated by whistle-blowers and media content creators. These
are reformers and speakers, respectively. Scandal, rather than being opposed to the activities
of activists, is almost always simply a tool that activists use, a fire that they light. Scandals are
activism gone viral. To distinguish between scandals and the people behind them is an
understandable error, because of the frequently higher profile of the scandal when compared
with that of the activist; but it is an error nonetheless. The Watergate scandal provides an
example of this. The scandal itself was clearly useful in that it pointed out the dishonesty and
invasion of privacy to which insufficiently regulated government may be prone. But to ascribe
the scandals effects to the scandal itself, without acknowledging the actions of the heroic and
shadowy figure of Deep Throat/W. Mark Felt, would be patently ridiculous. The involvement of
the media was similarly pivotalwithout the enthusiasm with which the scandal was reported,it would never have gained the visibility it did. It is no exaggeration to state that the activists
responsible, and not some amorphous notion of scandal, are responsible for the increased
awareness that resulted from the events of Watergate.
But this discussion has only dealt with the kind of scandals that are, on some level, genuinely
useful. The fact that this is far from all of them leads into the second problem with the
statement that scandals are more useful than speakers or reformers: that a great many
scandals are only dubiously useful at all, from most defensible points of view. Recent scandals
have dealt much more directly with the publics prurient interest than with genuine problems in
government and corporations. The scandals around the sexual misconducts of John Edwards
and David Petraeus, for example, accomplished little or nothing in the way of governmental or
societal reform. Rather, they generated a national festival of woman-blaming, in which the
women with whom these men likely leveraged their power in their efforts to have illicit affairs
were vilified and ridiculed. Although it could be argued that sexual scandals like these
encourage a culture of conventional sexual morality, such a culture would, in reality, be much
less enthusiastic about creating high-profile media events around what it would define as
sexual immorality. (Moreover, creating this kind of culture is a dubious goal in itself.) Scandals
-
7/30/2019 GREessay4
2/2
of this social rather than political or financial nature serve only to titillate the public, not to
effect beneficial change, and in absorbing public interest they displace genuine news and
perpetuate retrograde sentiments.
A view of scandal as more useful to the public good than activism and journalism elevates
scandal to a level of esteem it frequently does not merit, and it draws an artificial boundarybetween scandals and the activists and journalists who create them. Therefore, this view is in
error, and merits reconsideration.