»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Off The Record
| The Alley |
|
Off The Record |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
I watched a program on a once popular figure. In response to the relation of extramarital activities that man had been in, a supporter remarked that what someone did after 6:00 PM didn’t matter. Does or should what a public figure does after 6:00 PM, (ie in his/her private life), matter, ( I recall the JFK revelations just now)? http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kovach-warp.html [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-16-2004 02:08 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Since you brought up JFK, let's pretend this "public figure" is a politician. Does cheating on his wife make him worse at his job? No. However, it does make him a less respectable person, and more likely not to get reelected next term. Even if it "doesn't matter" with regard to his job performance, it will matter to others regarding his character if the instances comes to light. This is true of any profession, it just affects politicians more. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
It does matter, Linda - but I think the question was "should it?" My 2 cent answer - yesno. I think you're wrong in saying it doesn't affect their job - ie: how can you expect someone to be honest in their business dealings if they're not honest in their personal relationships? For a politician, this can be a very bad thing - what about an actor though? Could they perhaps better portray the part of a cheating spouse if they have personal experience at same? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The point made in the above site article attached, (see example regarding Martin Luther King), and which could be applied to JFK, is that if today’s standards of what is subject to media exposure had been in place in their time, they might have never come to the power and influence as they had. Given their records of accomplishments, is not better then that their private indiscretions had been kept out of public consciousness? Would it not be just as appropriate now? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
With Kennedy came the rise of mass-media, especially with how photogenic the First Family was. At the time, however, news outlets cared more about discretion than ratings. Times changed with Nixon, when every little indiscretion was rooted out, cataloged, and pinned like butterflies to billboards for all the world to see. And it's been that way ever since. Add to that stew the bloggers. You have those deeply interested in how things work, those grinding an axe, those desiring to re-write history, others with no other purpose than mischief, and some more wanting a bigger name in the hopes of being taken seriously. In some cases, bloggers broke stories and spread them like gasoline fed wildfires long before the mainstream news organizations had even gotten their boots on. And that's the new dynamic: journalism sans responsibility. What was once kept private is now vaunted in public, with some doing the reporting without oversight or standards. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nixon is an interesting example. I was just thinking that this shift to bedroom politics is easier on ratings than an actual political scandal. I get the feeling that it matters only if you already hate the candidate. It's a minor indiscretion if you support him or her. But what matters? What does matter? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I suppose this brings up the question of what Americans expect of a President or similar public figure. Is he expected to be a personal morals as well as political leader, ( I remember it being commented during the funeral of a French political figure, ( I forget his name), that both his wife and mistress stood side by side at the ceremony)? Still Jesse Jackson suffered no permanent damage from his affair, and my mother, (a life long Democrat), explained Clinton by all the women being tramps. Speaking of Clinton, how is Hilary’s acceptance of her husband’s indiscretions apt to impact on her chances for the presidency, ( Ted Kennedy was considered a viable candidate after Chappaquiddick and he seems to have had a few sexual romps of his own). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedychappaquiddick.htm |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
