Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 79°F ~ Low: 57°F Tuesday, May 22, 2012 |
|
It's a Scandal!Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009, at 10:40 AM
I am currently reading a wonderful biography of America's 32nd president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, by Jean Edward Smith. It is a lengthy work, at more than 600 pages plus notes, but not at all tiresome to read. Overall, the book has increased my admiration for the great leader and strengthened my beliefs in liberal progressivism. But, personal ideologies aside, I have been struck by an interesting political and social difference between those times and now.
FDR had a long-standing amorous relationship with a woman named Lucy Mercer, which was certainly known to many close to him, though the media never even broached the subject -- nor did any opposing presidential candidates, for that matter. Really, FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt had mostly a marriage of convenience, and they spent much of his presidency apart. Imagine what would happen if Mr. and Mrs. Obama were suddenly distant and often separate! It could be said that, in the "old days," members of the press, and perhaps politicians in general, were more respectful of persons of authority, or perhaps sex scandals were just too risqué for conservative American readers and voters. But really, why is it the public's business who the president spends his (or, hopefully someday, her) spare time with? Don't we have other, more important news to cover? Obviously, as a member of the press myself, I believe that transparency and honesty are essential qualities in a public official, and that the journalist's role as a watchdog is ever important as a check on government behavior. However, these things don't necessarily extend into the private lives of public servants. Unless the president is philandering with a spy or a lobbyist or someone else with an equally sinister motive, I don't think it's really journalism's role to comment. Of course, I've already been quite overruled on this topic. Mass media outlets and tabloids alike have discovered that scandal sells, and unfortunately the bottom line often takes precedence over other considerations. You certainly don't have to think too hard to come up with many political figures who've been publicly chastised for their private behavior: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Larry Craig, etc. There are a couple, but certainly only a couple, of instances where I think media attention can be justified. For instance, former Congressman Mark Foley, who sent inappropriate e-mails to male teenagers who worked as Congressional pages. Also, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who essentially abandoned his state office while traveling to visit his Argentinean mistress. I don't expect my lone little blog to end the torrential coverage of political sex scandals, or even just celebrity ones (think Tiger Woods). I'm afraid these stories are here to stay. But, I am interested to know readers' thoughts on the subject, especially those of you who think the coverage is justified. Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Little Town Blues Goes to China  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to SYDNEY STONNER - Login Something about music. Something about small towns. Something about Hong Kong. Or maybe something else entirely.
Sydney is a former staff writer for the Democrat-News. She received degrees from University of Missouri in both music and magazine journalism. She played oboe with the Marshall Philharmonic Orchestra and the Marshall Municipal Band while she was in Marshall. Hot topics What a Difference a Year Makes(0 ~ 5:40 AM, May 22)
No Room for Shyness
Yes We Can (go to Japan)
The Doorman Always Rings Twice
The Disaster in Japan, as seen from Hong Kong
|
Email link
Read comments (8)
Blog archive
ROFLMAO, Miss Marple...
And then there is the newly elected Senator Brown, who, when he was young, posed nude for Cosmopolitan. Now what do we all think about that?
Thepipe: does your expectations of proper sexual conduct apply to all other individuals? If so, who made you the Virtue Police? Does it apply in all cases to all people, and is it actually related to the policy decisions they make? I think there is a false correlation between sexual 'propriety' and absolute 'virtue' in all other areas of one's life that has gotten us into a LOT of trouble... I'd rather debate the effects of policy decisions than whether any of them give lip service to personal 'repentance', which is mostly bogus pap anyway.
Other than deep disappointment in Tiger Woods, I feel that what he does and who he sleeps with is between him and Mrs Woods.
However, I believe that character DOES matter when we're talking about the leader of the free world. If he/she will cheat on the one they swore to love forever and be true to, will they honor their promise(s) to the public? When "misbehaving", what sort of compromising situations will they get themselves into?
That person also forfeits most of their expectations of privacy when they take the oath of office.
Eleanor Roosevelt was deeply in love with Franklin. Certainly she fulfilled her conjugal duties in giving birth to a large brood of children. She was deeply hurt to discover Franklin's infidelity.
Some sources suggest she offered to divorce him, but Franklin and others felt that it would hurt his political future.
There is tremendous hypocrisy when Republicans who wrap themselves in the flag proclaiming their love of the country and sanctity of marriage while committing the same indefensible acts. e.g. Vitter of LA, Ensign of Nevada, who let his rich Mama and Daddy buy off the husband and son of the woman with whom he was dallying. Newt Gingrich, who told his first wife while she was in the hospital battling cancer that he wanted a divorce, married the second, and began an affair w/a younger woman, whom he accompanied to choir practice at the Baptist Church. On the other side, Eliot Spitzer was a sanctimonious prosecuting attorney. Then there is John Edwards, "Elizabeth was in remission"
Mark Sanford trotted out the four boys for his inauguration, but suddenly they along with their mother didn't have top of mind awareness for The Guv. Lame lot. A pox on all 'em.
I agree with Sydney and the preceding posts for the most part. I suspect that the only dissagreement you might hear about is with those who profess to be VERY religious. The religious right want to make it their business and want to bring anyone down they perceive as not following the teachings of their good book.
OKR & Sydney - I agree with you both. Considering that our 'founding fathers' were a bit on the 'lusty' side, did it change anything? Did it really matter 300 years later, that GW got pneumonia from jumping out of his mistress's window, or that Ben Franklin is also known as the 'father of American syphillis', or that Thomas Jefferson had a long standing relationship with his slave, Sally Hemming?
It's nothing but a distraction from what is going on that REALLY matters - like who's getting bribed by banking and health insurance lobbyists to protect the latters' profits at our expense, who's been secretly bombing Yemen for years, who is getting rich off of taxpayers' 'bailouts'...
But, hey, gossip is so much more 'fun' than investigative journalism... facts are so boring...
I am sick of what main stream news sources have become. Many are no more than panderers featuring the salacious at every opportunity.
I do believe it should be reported when the subject covered is a politician, or religous leader engaging in overt hypocrisy. They represent us, lead us, and should be accountable for not only illegal activities. We need to know their true character. Because of their choice of vocation they surrender some rights to privacy.
However, lusty people male or female, who happen to be in the public eye should be entitled to their privacy. For instance it is none of our business what Tiger Woods does in his private moments, any more than it was any of our business what Mickey Mantle, or Babe Ruth did back when. We got along fine without knowing what "The Babe", or "The Mick" did, and we would be better off if we did not invest our time following Tiger's lascivious behavior.