- 最后登录
- 2010-6-27
- 在线时间
- 492 小时
- 寄托币
- 2215
- 声望
- 166
- 注册时间
- 2008-4-12
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 帖子
- 19
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 1882
- UID
- 2482591
 
- 声望
- 166
- 寄托币
- 2215
- 注册时间
- 2008-4-12
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 19
|
发表于 2009-7-22 16:01:57
|显示全部楼层
words:574
Could the scandals be useful in politics, academia, or other areas in order to make the mass focusing on? To the author, clearly, not only the answer is yes, but also assert that scandals are more powerful to attract people’s attention than speakers and reformers. I agree insofar as the fact that scandals are indeed magnetic to catch our eyes when we read newspapers or watch TV. At some point, however, I think the function of scandals in this modern society is worth considering.
Consider first the author’s assertion “they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformers ever could”. I concede that unless the media reveals some unspeakable affairs, especially of celebrities and politicians, that we are likely to be kept in the dark about the truth. On the other hand, while the speakers and reformers have to be responsible for anything they say to protect their own repute so that they cannot speak to the public whatever they have got known. By contrast, the exposure of scandals has probably less scruple and limit than the open speaking. Another respect for more attention caused by the scandals is the curiosity from people’s innermost being, for which would be satisfied by scandals.
However, focusing attention is only one possible outcome causing by scandals to the public. In my observation, it is not the most important one. Consider scandal which has left a negative and profound effect to certain people or institution which may not be responsible for the scandal.
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz broke bank rules in arranging a hefty compensation package for his girlfriend. This situation not only has caused a "crisis in the leadership" at the institution, but also has had a dramatic negative effect on the reputation and credibility of the bank. Wolfowitz ought to be reprobated, but the bank has been involved in the repercussion.
Consider next the author’s claim that scandals can be useful in all areas. If we define a “useful” effect as one characterized by greater positive influence for people’s work and study and greater contribution to better society, then many scandals perhaps cannot be “useful” especially in the entertainment world. Inasmuch, scandals unfolded by the media who would not be responsible for the consequence whatever positive or not, result in that people suspect the credibility of the “scandal” and even neglect it, not to mention other any contribution to the society. And there is ample evidence of useless scandal of the entertainment world. After the sudden death of Michael Jackson Evan Chandler tell the truth “Now for the first time I cannot bare to lie anymore. Michael Jackson did not do anything to me, all was my father lies to escape from being poor.” What knowledge or helpful information would be gained if people remember it? This sex scandal perhaps makes none sense, except for the depression and growing dull career of Michael Jackson. In short, the author’s second claim flies in the face of the empirical evidence, as I see it.
In sum, admittedly, the scandal would attract more attention than any speakers and reformers would do. However, I think the scandal has more negative effect rather than benefits to better society. Moreover, when it comes to whether the scandal can be useful in all areas, the key determination is not focusing attention of public but rather other factors-positive effect for people’s study or work or contribution to better society. |
|