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

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 boundary between scandals and the activists and journalists who create them. Therefore, this view is in error, and merits reconsideration.