Issue185 --Hermes 求拍

qhx17UID: 142079

TOPIC: ISSUE185 - "Scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other areas-can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."
WORDS: 558          TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2006-10-31

The author asserts that scandals could be useful in any areas and they attract the public attention on problems in ways that neither speaker nor reformer could. This assertion actually consists of two claims: that scandals are useful in nearly each area, and that scandals are unique ways to absorb the public concerning. While I agree with the first claim insofar as they are sometimes useful in some areas, and I disagree the second claim when it comes to no speaker or reformer could focus people's attention on problems.

A threshold point is how we can define scandals. As far as I know, scandals are some things or some events which are secret and concealed or unknown by the public. In short term, scandals can catch the public attention. In most extent, scandals make an amusing role for they become topics of conversations in public places, such as buses, restaurants, clubs, even on TV show or radio broadcasting.  And when they come politics, they are always useful. Many politicians make use of scandals to beat rivals and achieve their purpose. And public attention contributes to the politic success. For example, consider "Water Gate" which led Nixon failure of being the next term president. The increasing focus on scandals is evident in entertainment. The stars in music or movies increase their popularity by various scandals. I find quite telling the fact that more scandals more pop the stars are. To media companies, more scandals amount to higher benefits. In some areas, scandals obviously useful and sometimes make contributing factor to the final achievement.

However, scandals own disadvantage which might undermine their function in some area. The public are more interest in scandals rather than the contribution. Consider politics, with the supervisement of the media, a politician might loss reputation when connecting with some scandals. Take the same example "Water Gate" above mentioned, Nixon lose his election just because of that event, while the contribution might wane considerably. Moreover, some scholar might lose his honor by little flaw. Because people might over concern scandals then overlook the highlights of the person. Every people has his or her merits and flaws, it is unfair to evaluate the individual based on scandals.

Admittedly, while scandals can attract the public attention on the problems, but they are no more effective than speaker or reformer did. For scandals are miraculous, they easily catch people focus on the problem. But whether they can rich the extent that no speaker or reformer ever could is hard to say. In my view, scandals are effective ways to become central concern, while what speakers or reformers did might be effective as well. After all, problems scandals pointed out are not important than speakers or reformers referred. For example, scandals about politician's anecdote fun for public, while other problems speaker or reformer mentioned about the improvement is more important. Insofar that mentioned, the author claimed that "scandals focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could" is dubious at best.

In final analysis, scandals amount a double-edged sword. While they play a role in areas involve politics, academic, and so forth, the benefit is hard to say. Some one succeed relying on scandals, others fail reason in scandals. They actually focus public attention on problems, but those ways speaker or reformer could achieve as well.