Scandals- are there more than ever before?

[lenslady]

After this latest scandal with Roseanne I am becoming more disheartened about all the celebrities that exist, and especially about my opportunities of watching any type of unscathed entertainment - seems my choices in this arena are growing rapidly slim.

My former favorite newsman- Charlie Rose. My former favorite narrator- not to mention one of my top ten favorite actors- Morgan Freeman.
I was laughin' along with the Cos on old records when he was asking "Why is there air? ( to blow up volley balls) " And btw I thought Miramax came out with some fine films.

Don't even mention politicians. If there's one that hasn't made the maid, or muscled the meek, or who had to call the Maytag repairman b/c he laundered so much money it broke the washing machine- I dunno who. And what's this new thing with muppets having an orgy?!?! is no place safe?

I may have to give up tv and movies and newscasts entirely ( cooking shows too apparently) and if I' m ever gonna vote again- I'll need to bring a can of Lysol into the voting booth.

I know we've always had scandals, some of which seem uncalled for wuth the passing of time- getting divorced or having an affair, for instance, was enough to derail a career at one point in the distant past.

Are the amount of scandals just becoming more visible b/c of the phones and the Internet and the Twitter where people friitter away their time, and their careers ?

Or is it something else? Are there more scandals about grievous misbehavior b/c just more and more people are misbehaving?

I have to admit during this recent deluge of reveals about people I was once comfortable to watch- and who I can no longer think of without cringing- I just wonder if things are just getting worse!

Waddya think? Is it just human nature? Or is it a new world disorder? I m not sure either conclusion will cheer me up. But interested in your views.

And maybe I'll just watch cartoons and animated movies from now on - lest they find some dirt on Nemo and Dory next🙄

[pahaK]

Are the amount of scandals just becoming more visible b/c of the phones and the Internet and the Twitter where people friitter away their time, and their careers ?

I'd say this and also what counts as a scandal is getting out of hand thanks to SJWs getting hurt by practically anything that isn't in 100% agreement with them.

[Dani8]

I've never seen it like this before in my lifetime. Of course scandals were on the news but it was time to time. Now the reporting seems incessant. I think it comes down to staff layoffs. It's much easier and cheaper to pick up one source's tidbits and make it a story through all the internet noise. I remember talking to a journo about 8years ago when there were massive cuts to one of our media outlets and she warned me this would happen. I forgot about that until your thread, LL.

Good topic. 🐼🐾

[The Rodent]

I'd say this and also what counts as a scandal is getting out of hand thanks to SJWs getting hurt by practically anything that isn't in 100% agreement with them.



Agree with this.
This millennial society is pathetic.
If you don't fully agree with little Bobby or little Sally, they get offended, and get upset, and cry, and take to social media... and you're forever labelled as a racist, misogynist, bigamist, sexist, etc etc, et al... because you have a different opinion.


As for the question... is it more common?
No.


The world is a lot smaller than it used to be.


Years ago, scandals, crimes, whatever... were local news.
If a councillor in, say, Bournemouth, stole some money from the treasury, it would be a local news event at most. Usually though, it would be dealt with in-house... and maybe only the family of the person in question would know about it.
Or, for instance, if someone was working for the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s, and they were molesting children, the BBC would deal with it in-house. Or, not deal with it, maybe even cover it up, and it would go under the radar.


Because of the internet and social media in today's social climate, if a cat gets stuck up a tree in an unheard of village in the middle of nowhere in China, every single person on the planet hears about it.

[Dani8]

Where I am there seem to be a lot more panel style shows like Graham Norton which is on right now. I like him so it's not a criticism but an observation. Having my sleep patterns mucked up at the moment means I'm Channel surfing at all times so I'm noticing things for the first time.

[Chypmunk]

Kinda ironic in this age where personal responsibility for many is getting less and less.

[I. Rex]

Blame TMZ and Twitter and paparazzi and 24 hour cable news networks. Which is to say the monetization of scandal and celebrity culture, the brand new technological ability to allow the deepest parts of our brain to INSTANTLY be displayed for the world to see and the 'if it bleeds it leads' approach to journalism. Its very unlikely theres more of this stuff going on now than in the past (despite Donald Trump!). Its just we are much more likely to be exposed to it and its much more likely to be reported on now than in the past. The irony of being exposed to it so much is that it makes it feel like theres an epidemic when in fact its the opposite. Theres actually less of it now BECAUSE its harder to get away with. Thats true for crime as well. And global conflicts. And mans inhumanity to man. Things are actually getting better and better despite what we see on TV. Yet people clammer for the old days when things were easier and people were nicer to each other and the truth is it wasn’t and they weren't.

What IS true is that you need to be more actively conscious about filtering these days or you will be drowned in a fire hose of concentrated scandal and toxic hostility and disagreement (I say this as I write a post about avoiding toxic mediums on a message board on the internet :p Irony!) Doesn’t mean you go off the grid and live without electricity but the human animal was not designed to live in a constant state of flight or fight, stewing in anxiety and paranoia. Its bad for us. It makes us sick. So not being slaves to our phones and to our televisions is a good first step. And the old cliche about being the change in the world that you want to see is more important than ever.

[Iroquois]

I'm inclined to think that scandalous behaviour has always been there and that people's tolerance for it has been slowly but surely dwindling as a result of social progress on every conceivable scale. I'd say that blaming an increase in scandals on "SJWs" having zero tolerance for even the most trivial of transgressions is in itself an extreme response that leaves no room for concession that the SJWs might actually have a good reason to take offence instead of faking it for the sake of their own self-righteousness (the same goes for Rodent's complaint about being lambasted for "having a different opinion", which would actually be fair if the opinion in question was severe enough).

[Citizen Rules]

I'd say this and also what counts as a scandal is getting out of hand thanks to SJWs getting hurt by practically anything that isn't in 100% agreement with them.

Agree with this.
This millennial society is pathetic.
If you don't fully agree with little Bobby or little Sally, they get offended, and get upset, and cry, and take to social media... and you're forever labelled as a racist, misogynist, bigamist, sexist, etc etc, et al... because you have a different opinion.

Agreed! There's a whole generation of whiny-wieners (not all of them of course) but enough of them, that they act like a controlling gang of 'in crowd' Jr High kids..and if you ever disagree with their socially accepted viewpoints, look out!

It's a totally lack of balls. Individuality is dying and being replaced with social media drones.

[Stirchley]

The word scandal derives from the Greek word skandalon meaning "a trap or snare laid for an enemy”. The word appears in the New Testament, so we can safely say that there have always been scandals & always will be.

[SmudgeEFC1985]

Agree with this.
This millennial society is pathetic.
If you don't fully agree with little Bobby or little Sally, they get offended, and get upset, and cry, and take to social media... and you're forever labelled as a racist, misogynist, bigamist, sexist, etc etc, et al... because you have a different opinion.


As for the question... is it more common?
No.


The world is a lot smaller than it used to be.


Years ago, scandals, crimes, whatever... were local news.
If a councillor in, say, Bournemouth, stole some money from the treasury, it would be a local news event at most. Usually though, it would be dealt with in-house... and maybe only the family of the person in question would know about it.
Or, for instance, if someone was working for the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s, and they were molesting children, the BBC would deal with it in-house. Or, not deal with it, maybe even cover it up, and it would go under the radar.


Because of the internet and social media in today's social climate, if a cat gets stuck up a tree in an unheard of village in the middle of nowhere in China, every single person on the planet hears about it.

Beat me to it! It's like when I was a kid and I used to read about conspiracy theories, I always wondered why so many of them were around 20th century events. I don't think they are any more common than they were pre 20th century, just we had a lot more information and sources then, so you didnt have to take everything you heard at face value.

I'd say 'scandals' are the same. The internet has given everybody a voice, sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing, but you cant stop it. I dont so much have a problem with that creating a wider audience to people's indiscretions, as if people have done something very wrong, then they should absolutely be brought to task over it, no matter how long ago it was. My biggest problem when it comes to people having nasty or hateful views about groups of people, there is not enough drive to really use these opinions to educate others as to what is wrong with it, rather just to silence, which in turn only creates more resentment and seeming justification from hate groups. You're not going to change the views of that racist, or bigot, or sexist, or homophobe no matter how you treat them. But it cant just be completely ignored either, because the internet is sadly a swimming cesspool of hate speech that a worrying number of people think is entirely acceptable.

[iank]

I'm tired of it, esp since 99% of it I don't even care about anyway. Get over it FFS.

That said.., Allison Mack. W in T proverbial F? :eek::nope:

[Stirchley]

Who is Allison Mack?

[SmudgeEFC1985]

I'm tired of it, esp since 99% of it I don't even care about anyway. Get over it FFS.

That said.., Allison Mack. W in T proverbial F? :eek::nope:

Okay...there was one I didnt know about and Googled it...oh bloody hell...

[iank]

Former Smallville actress, now facing charges of sex cult trafficking.

:eek:

Now that's a scandal, not Roseanne getting drunk and saying something unPC on Twitter...:D

[Iroquois]

Agreed! There's a whole generation of whiny-wieners (not all of them of course) but enough of them, that they act like a controlling gang of 'in crowd' Jr High kids..and if you ever disagree with their socially accepted viewpoints, look out!

It's a totally lack of balls. Individuality is dying and being replaced with social media drones.

Quoting two other people just to rephrase the exact same complaint they had is hardly what I'd consider a strong mark of individuality.

But seriously, like I said before, there's a problem with thinking that it's just baseless offence instead of actually considering that they have a point. If "individuality" is the concern, then surely it's better to defend individuals who would prefer to co-exist peacefully with other individuals than those whose own sense of individuality comes at the expense of others' senses of individuality.

Former Smallville actress, now facing charges of sex cult trafficking.

:eek:

Now that's a scandal, not Roseanne getting drunk and saying something unPC on Twitter...:D

See, this is what I was talking about when I referred to the problem with phrases like "difference of opinion" being used to shrug off stuff. She publicly compared a black person to an ape and then opted to blame a drug instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility for it (and that's just on top of all the other awful stuff she's said and done over the years). This whole it's-not-that-bad attitude is what allows not-that-bad stuff to keep happening.

[I. Rex]

Yeah I love the tired old attack on political correctness. I was wondering who was going to be the first to pull the PC card in connection with this incident. Because, you know, calling black people something clearly and obviously racist is just being an "individual" and if people get offended by it then thats their own problem. Not the problem of the racist who said it. And the fact that its all over the media is annoying because "I dont care" about people being offensive to other people. They just need to get over it and shut up so there will be more sex cult stories for me to leer over.

[SmudgeEFC1985]

See, this is what I was talking about when I referred to the problem with phrases like "difference of opinion" being used to shrug off stuff. She publicly compared a black person to an ape and then opted to blame a drug instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility for it (and that's just on top of all the other awful stuff she's said and done over the years). This whole it's-not-that-bad attitude is what allows not-that-bad stuff to keep happening.

The classic apology after the fact. Not sorry for what they said, sorry they got caught/ called out on it.

I read another one yesterday about someone called Pogo? Some YouTuber or other (God I hate that word...) Id never heard of before yesterday but apparently is quite popular and makes a lot of money on there. It seems he is immensely homophobic, not just to the extent of saying he doesnt like LGBT people, but flat out admitting to celebrating the Pulse massacre on top of a lot of other very hateful things about the LGBT community. His 'apology' involved saying that he says things sometimes just to test people and get a reaction...yeah alright lad, saying something to get a reaction is making a joke with a mate about a sore point. Not flat out admitting that you personally enjoyed mass murder in a gay club.

Thats kind of what I was getting at about just straight silencing people. Society at first needs to make an example and make it clear why behaviour like this is wrong. All flat out silencing does is give hate groups an even greater reasoning and platform as they can hide behind the idea that their free speech is being denied.Take away their platform yes, but make it clear why first. Dont give them an opportunity to be made a martyr.

[Citizen Rules]

Yeah I love the tired old attack on political correctness. I was wondering who was going to be the first to pull the PC card in connection with this incident...Just for the record: my post was not specifically about Rosanne's comments, which I do personal find offensive....but over the fact that her show was cancelled over one of it's stars having a controversial opinion. In other words I support anyone's right to free speech, even, if I don't personally like what they have to say.

[I. Rex]

Just for the record: my post was not specifically about Rosanne's comments, which I do personal find offensive....but over the fact that her show was cancelled over one of it's stars having a controversial opinion. In other words I support anyone's right to free speech, even, if I don't personally like what they have to say.

And thats fair enough but our right to "free speech" does not guarantee there wont be repercussions from exercising said free speech. Like getting fired. And having a show cancelled. Thats how capitalism works actually. So celebrate free speech but dont assume that means we can all say whatever we want and there will be no real world repercussions.

[Stirchley]

Always find it odd when an OP doesn’t return to his/her own thread.

[lenslady]

Well I really didn't have much t

[lenslady]

.....to say lol -or add... got cut off.

But I was interested in everyone's different opinions, and enjoyed reading everyone's viewpoints . We have basically a thoughtful articulate bunch at mofo, and even if we disagree, I appreciate everyone's input.

I really didn't feel a need to debate or add to the ideas expressed here- just glad to listen in. But you seem to be expecting some words from me, - I will more or less repeat myself by saying: I can agree with Dani8 that I've never seen anything like this in my life. Even if it's just a change in media reporting - I DO feel that something has changed. And perhaps not just in media, but perhaps in society itself. And it may have been brewing for quite some time, but ijmho - has come to an ugly fruition now.

[Citizen Rules]

....I really didn't feel a need to debate...That's how I feel. I like to discuss, but, I have no need to bop somebody over the head just because they have a different viewpoint than my own. Glad you think likewise:)

I've never seen anything like this in my life. Even if it's just a change in media reporting - I DO feel that something has changed.
It does indeed feel like something has changed. There's a new awareness of past wrongs being committed, usually against women with sexual harassment, and there's an attempt to put an end to 'looking the other way'. Which I applaud.

But...at the same time the media does what the media has been doing since info-tainment became a thing with cable news....they turn any current hot topic into a media circus. That circus then creates a highly charged environment where everybody can be suspect, regardless of guilt. I.E. trial by the media, where one is guilty until proven innocent.

That phenomenon also occurred during the 1950s with the communist scare, McCarthyism and the investigations into it by the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee. There were people guilty of communist subversion at the time like the Rosenberg that supplied top secret information to the USSR. But there was also many people who had innocently associated with the communist party when young and they too were ranked over the coals and careers were destroyed by blacklisting.

[lenslady]

Thank you Citizen Rules; you've expressed my sentiments better than I could have myself.


And speaking of harsh tactics against those who had no devious motives against their country - or anyone: I think of Pete Seeger. Banned and blacklisted from tv and media for years, he kept busy with a project some would have called far fetched- to clean up the Hudson River. The Clearwater Sloop will still be sailing, trying to raise awareness of the environment- long after he received a Presidental pardon - and the fish have come back to swim that ' dirty little river' next to where Pete once made his home.

[ynwtf]

I've only skimmed through some of the previous posts (I am aware of the irony that that is also sort of part of the problem?), so if I'm repeating so be it.

Personally, I believe humans have always had scandal. We make drama for ourselves then use it for entertainment. Human nature has been consistent, I feel, while it is mostly our access to and ability to disseminate information that has changed. Profits demand we feed the 24-hour news cycle with meat, whether that's prime rib or fatty sausage filler. That model has been adopted by damn near every marketing approach since all the knowledge (and false knowledge) of the world is now within a moment's reach. The speed in which we can not only receive information, but redistribute that information has grown faster than our capability (or willingness?) to verify such information. Add to that our own observational biases to selectively cull differing opinions, heightened by a generation or two weaned into and mostly ignorantly dependent on sugary substances for both body and mind, we are psychologically compelled to seek more stimuli to maintain our attention.

Speaking of bias, what scandals exist are strategically marketed far more than ever for emotional impact. So much so that we cannot be bothered to question our encouraged impulse. Instead, we roll with it setting logic and healthy skepticism aside to be endlessly reassured that our gut feelings are absolutely accurate and that person over there, and anything that they say or do are absolutely scandalous.

On the other side of that coin though stands the scandal which I feel, given our social climate and the seemingly lack of honest humility, regret, or consequence, has become trivial. Why make great effort to hide something that is now very subjective to interpretation given everyone's right to an opinion or that because of our waning attention spans, that scandal will be swallowed whole in the next media cycle for what a Kardashian tweets?


Fun!!!

[I. Rex]

Ran across this video the other day and it reminded me of the initial discussion here. Definitely worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ

[Dani8]

Woah Woah

If I didn't love him before I don't know how I feel now other than I am amazed and cannot applaud loudly enough. Richard Dreyfuss has just utterly pounded one of the entertainment sewerats I despise on day time TV. GOOD. ON. HIM! I am so bored with the scurrilous attempts to dredge up decades long tidbits in an attempt to make $ for the disgraceful 'media' outlets they sniff around like dogs waiting in line to earn a living from.

He is a guest here in Sydney on a press junket to give us all entertain news. Shame on you, Lisa Wilkinson. You were never a journalist and this confirms it.

[iank]

Oh, he's pwned that specimen, has he? Good for him. I could never stand her either!

[Dani8]

Oh, he's pwned that specimen, has he? Good for him. I could never stand her either!
I can't stand any of them, iank, but she's on top of the pile. I'm glad he called her on her lack of ethics, and that he held himself as a gentleman. It's time to get back to news.

I remember being totally in awe of him when I was a kid and didn't read a blip of anything of the sort, and my parents certainly would have talked about it. That's my two cents.