How will you spend your Thanksgiving break?
The morning the Tiger Woods scandal broke, I overheard the Third North dining hall staff pretty much preparing Woods' eulogy. One of them shook his head and said, "Man! He was supposed to be a good brother, someone to be proud of!" I felt the urge to pound my fist on the table (spilling my coffee for dramatic affect), and yell, "And why can't he still be a good brother? As long as he can still play golf, who cares?"
But when the headlines rear their ugly, slanderous heads, professional images are shattered.
When an authority figure or a respected institution is constantly scrutinized by the media, stains are bound to show up at some point. And when they do, scandals take an unpleasant toll on the professional lives of prominent figures everywhere.
We who do not live under the criticism of the public eye have the luxury of keeping our personal and professional lives separate, but figures like Woods and Gov. David Paterson aren't granted that luxury.
Is it wise to discredit an authority figure's validity because of a scandal? To take a phrase from Lady Gaga, how should the public react when the Fame Monster attacks its celebrities? Unfortunately, tabloids and gossip columns that expose the dirty little secrets of otherwise fine individuals have a fair amount of control over the public opinion.
In the case of Woods, a sex scandal wouldn't affect his performance as a golfer in any way, yet he lost his endorsements. Companies shuddered at the possibly that customers won't buy a Gatorade with Woods' face on it because it might be considered the drink of adulterers.
The question of whether a scandal should discredit an individual directly affected NYU when they chose Alec Baldwin as the 2010 commencement speaker. On Monday, WSN's Editorial Board acknowledged that although Baldwin is no saint, there's no reason why he can't give an inspirational commencement speech. NYU attests that they chose him as the speaker "in recognition of his talent as an actor." In assessing his capabilities as an actor, Baldwin's murky past and publicized scandal shouldn't matter.
A public figure's image after a scandal is a common problem in the political world as well. Fox New York claims that allegations regarding Paterson's personal life began when blogs circulated reports that The New York Times was working on a story that would reveal things about Paterson's life that would "force him to resign."
Regardless, Paterson's rocky marriage has nothing to do with his ability to fulfill his current post, yet these blogs picked up enough momentum to contest his ability to serve in office. Publicized scandals are political tools. They provide leverage for those who want to destroy the reputation of a prominent figure. In the case of Paterson, one could say the slander is an attempt at turning the public against Paterson and toward his competitor, Andrew Cuomo.
Some might say to these prominent figures, "Well if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." But the burden to bear here doesn't rest with the celebrities who put up with the tabloid, but with the public that forms an opinion based on it.
Whether it be a scandal slandering an athlete like Woods, an actor like Baldwin or a political figure like Paterson, the bottom line is that flaws in people's personal lives shouldn't be considered indicative of their ability to do their jobs. Baldwin can still charm the hell out of Meryl Streep in "Its Complicated," Paterson can still veto an ethics bill, and Tiger still has one impressive right swing.
