Real News vs. Fake News

The most prominent ethical problem in journalism today is the infiltration of entertainment and popular culture into the news arena. With the emergence of entertainment news shows and the public’s increased interest in the personal lives of public figures, the lines between real news and industry buzz have been blurred. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news outlets. When talk shows hosted by highly-paid comedians become a news source, there is a serious problem. Distinguishing authentic journalism from pseudo journalism has become increasingly difficult due to the prevalence of mock news shows that are entertainment-focused, gossip-prone and sensationalistic. 

The goal of news is to provide the public with meaningful information that enlightens and empowers people to make informed choices. To accomplish this, news outlets must center its content around stories that are newsworthy. Unfortunately, the application of the term is applied much too loosely. Too many stories are featured as newsworthy, when in reality they are nothing but an illustration of bizarre behavior and sophisticated gossip. The news industry must work to distinguish itself from entertainment media and reestablish its reputation as an avenue for accurate information based on reliable sources, sound reporting techniques, whose content is factual and substantive. 

A study conducted by researchers at Ohio State University in 2008 found that people who watch fake news shows learn far less about political issues and candidates than people who watch television news shows on networks, such as CNN and NBC. “Both news and entertainment media seem to promote some knowledge gain, but people who are exposed to news gain more factual information and learn more about a wide range of important topics than those exposed to entertainment media,” said Young Mie Kim, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State. 

Entertainment news shows like Extra and Inside Edition project a news-like format, however the content featured hardly qualifies as news. Regular topics include movie and sitcom reviews, the latest fashion trends and quite often the indiscretions of celebrities. During the Tiger Woods scandal in 2009, networks such as CNN and MSNBC provided prolonged coverage of the ordeal. While the story was newsworthy to some extent, traditional news programs provided more coverage than appropriate for news networks. High viewership of such stories may prove there is a considerable audience present, but news organizations must fight the urge to dilute its content to compete with entertainment media. 

Legal news shows like Nancy Grace feature newsworthy stories that obtain national attention, however, they are covered with a tabloid-like slant and overzealous tone. As a result, stories are taken out of context and blown out of proportion, making mock news shows like this a platform for sensationalism. Programs like The View use a talk show-like forum where issues of the day are discussed, however, most of the hosts are not professional journalists so their perspectives tend to be opinion-based, rather than founded on sound reporting and research. When substantial guests like President Obama appear, interviews are compromised due to poor training and technique. Programs in this genre also mix newsworthy events, such as the tax-cut debate with tinseltown gossip like Kim Kardashian’s divorce. Citizen journalism, while beneficial in some ways, has also compromised news quality due to “do it yourself” websites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia. Technology now allows people to blog and post videos of anything they find interesting without verifying facts, sources or properly reporting a story. The mix of real news with entertainment chatter is dangerous because it compromises the work of real journalists.

The news landscape has been muddied by a variety of genres that have weakened journalism and its perception by the public. “Audiences are attracted more to entertainment than serious public-affairs reporting, and what’s worse, that they may not even be able to distinguish between the two,” said Jeffrey P. Jones, associate professor and Director of the Institute of Humanities at Old Dominion University. While solid journalism is the goal of most news outlets, ratings and revenue lie at the heart of any business model. Abiding by an ethical model in a revenue-driven media landscape where viewership of entertainment-based shows is in high demand may prove difficult, but its necessary. The role of ethics in journalism depends upon the philosophy and mission of a news organization, and the mindset of management and producers. Whether good or bad, the ethical code of any news organization will determine the quality and caliber of news featured, the direction a network will go in and ultimately its longevity. Implementing high standards will undoubtedly set traditional news networks a part from entertainment media, and position them as the more credible, reliable and respectable news source. -v7 

Herman Cain Ends an Embarrassing Campaign Spectacle

In the face of recent allegations of an extra-marital affair, Herman Cain has finally, albeit defiantly, ended his campaign to become the GOP nominee for president. Some suggest the combined fallout from sexual harassment and extra-marital affair charges made it impossible for him to stay in the race. But in reality, Cain had no business being in the race in the first place.

The Cain candidacy was not only an extreme long shot, at best; it was a political side show. Cain repeatedly showed himself to be ill-prepared, uniformed and woefully unqualified to seek high office, let alone the presidency. On numerous occasions, he displayed an astounding lack of knowledge on the most basic of political issues, e.g., not knowing that China has possessed nuclear weapons for decades or being unable to articulate a coherent response to a simple question about U.S. policy in Libya.

Cain’s ineptitude was not only an embarrassment to himself, it was also an embarrassment for the Republican Party. The process involved in selecting candidates for our highest and most important elected office position is indeed a serious endeavor not to be taken lightly. So for the Republican electorate to elevate and validate the candidacy of such a obviously unqualified and unserious candidate was inexcusable. Their continued support for his substantively deficient campaign made a mockery of the presidential nominating process.

I appreciate voters’ thirst for outsider candidates who haven’t been tarnished or corrupted by Washington politics, which is what supposedly made Cain appealing to many. However, that’s no excuse for backing someone who conservative columnist George Will characterized on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” as an “entrepreneurial charlatan,” for essentially using his candidacy as a book tour.

The task of selecting presidential candidates is serious business. It’s not enough for contenders to be likable and passionate; they need to also be knowledgeable and well-informed on the issues, and demonstrate an understanding of the significant level of responsibility required for high office leadership - something Cain clearly did not.

The suspension of his candidacy may be a disappointment to those who choose to support him, but the decision brought a needed end to his delusion that he could ever become president. And shame on GOP voters for ever allowing such an unserious and unqualified individual to think he could.

Mitt Romney is a Political Phony GOP Should Reject

According to conventional Republican Party political wisdom, Gov. Mitt Romney, who competed to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008, should be outpacing his rivals this time around by leaps and bounds. Historically, Republicans tend to reward repeat nomination contenders with unbridled party support. But polls that show him garnering only about 23 to 25 percent support, even while being praised as the most plausible candidate in the field to challenge President Obama in 2012, suggest that GOP voters are not yet convinced. They seem intent to finding a more appealing alternative to Romney; and they are wise to keep looking.

Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.

George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”

In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”

When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.

GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.

What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.

Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.

Myth of Electing a “Non-Politician”

A recent NBC / Wall Street Journal poll shows candidate Herman Cain pulling ahead of the other challengers in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Cain was the preferred choice among 27 percent of GOP primary voters. Behind Cain was Gov. Mitt Romney at 23 percent and Gov. Rick Perry at 16 percent.

Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.

While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:

Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?

While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.

Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.

So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.

At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.

Pundits should stop making premature election predictions

In late August, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a piece practically anointing Gov. Rick Perry as “possibly our next president.“ In his argument, he makes reference to the “slew of polls showing Gov. Rick Perry of Texas surging to double-digit national leads.” He went on to analyze why Perry’s brand of politics was more appealing to today’s Republican Party, citing electoral trends and shifts in voter attitudes that make him a credible contender in 2012.

The problem with his analysis -- just one month later -- is that it was extremely premature. Perry’s uneven performances in Republican debates, his uncompromisingly blunt views on issues such as Social Security -- which he maligns as a ponzi scheme, and climate change, which he suggests is a scientific hoax -- have weakened his so-called front-runner status. Some Republicans are now even questioning his electability, a point that was made all the more clear with candidate Herman Cain’s runaway victory in the recent Florida straw poll. Cain garnered 37.1% support to Perry’s 15.4%. So much for Perry being dubbed the anointed one.

So why did Brooks, one the most thoughtful op-ed writers around today, make such premature claims about a candidate untested on the national stage? Well, he did what too many members of today’s chattering class tend to do: fail to appreciate the uncertain and ever-changing nature of politics. If we know anything about polls, we know that they can change in an instant, especially this far out from an election. But pundits often ignore that reality, offering short-sighted “perspectives of the moment” as if political conditions and events remain constant.

Now that Perry appears more like a political liability than an asset for the Republican Party, Brooks would have been wise to include a few caveats in his article trumpeting Perry's presidential election potential. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Donald Trump soared to the top of the polls among the Republican presidential contenders, only to see his standing and appeal quickly fade once voters got a chance to hear what he had to say. This lesson was certainly recent enough to serve as a cautionary tale for rushing to judgment too quickly. Also, a look back at the 2008 Republican primary, which was rife with erroneous predictions about presumed frontrunners and likely nominees, should be enough to chasten any pundit from speaking with certainty about the likely primary outcome.

Perry’s recent fall from grace by no means suggests he’s out of the running for the Republican nomination. His political fortunes could just as easily rise again should he alter his message and tone to appeal to those primary voters who now view him with skepticism. At least I am willing to wisely hedge on the outcome, acknowledging the possibility for a Perry rebound. Brooks could have avoided having egg on his face had he offered a perspective on Perry that did the same.
　

Time to Wise up on Presidential Elections

Our quadrennial U.S. presidential election cycles are rather interesting events. They represent a moment in American civil engagement when voters swoon at the idealized fantasy that a better leader is looming out there just a ballot box vote away. Voters seem to get intoxicated by the pageantry, arousing stump speeches and saturation media coverage. But while these elections are vital to our Constitutional democracy, there are a few cautionary points voters should heed before getting sweep away in the spectacle and hype of the presidential campaign season:

Stop yearning for the next great political messiah -
The public needs to stop building presidents up to be more than what they are, which are public servants hired to do a job. Furthermore, political leaders aren’t omniscient beings endowed with powers that enable them to wave magic wands that instantly fix all the nation’s problems. We also don’t live in a dictatorship, so the president isn’t able to simply do what he wants at will. He’s only one person who must contend with an established political system, which includes a coequal branch of government (the U.S. Congress) that he must navigate and collaborate with in order to advance his agenda. Moreover, the president, no matter how well-intentioned or politically gifted, is limited in his ability to move his agenda due to the constraints of the legislative process, which can be extremely difficult.

Beware false political prophets -
These are the White House aspirants who boldly claim to possess the requisite skills and experience needed to solve all our problems. Voters of course cheer them on freely, enthusiastically drinking the Kool-Aid these charlatans peddle. But what voters fail to grasp while entranced in the intoxicating haze of scripted speeches and poll-tested campaign rhetoric is that there is a fundamental difference between “campaigning” and “governing.” As candidates vying to win their way into elected office, it’s easy to promise voters the moon on the campaign trail and make unrealistic assertions about what they can do once in office. Also, candidates are completely unburdened by having to make the tough decisions officeholders confronting real problems have to make everyday.

One reason high-office contenders get away with telling such fables stems from not usually being held accountable for their fantasy promises or intentions on the campaign trail. If the fables sound credible enough such as promising to fix Medicare and Social Security or easily creating millions of new jobs, candidates get the benefit of the doubt from voters who are often less concerned about the specific details no matter how impractical the claims may be.

In truth, if our country’s problems were as easy to fix as some candidates would naively have voters believe, wouldn’t they have been resolved already? That’s just something to keep in mind the next time you hear candidates promising something that seems too good to be true.

Change for change sake is seldom a good idea -
Contrary to popular belief, change isn’t always good. When election-year emotions and passions are running high, voters can get fired up, sometimes charging to the polls with a throw-the-bums-out mindset. And while there are many political bums that need to be thrown out of office from time to time, voters need to be careful that they are not hastily throwing in a new set of bums to replace those just booted. Well that‘s exactly what happened in the 2010 elections when voters stormed to the polls on a wave of so-called anger to throw out the Democrats who they replaced with band of anti-government conservative extremists called the Tea Party.

The prolonged debt-ceiling crisis was dragged out in large measure because Tea Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives stubbornly refused to compromise, choosing instead to risk bringing our nation’s economy, which is already on shaky legs, to the brink of collapse. But such behavior was reasonably predictable given some of the extremist rhetoric many of these candidates espoused during the 2010 campaign. True, the public wisely rejected many of these candidates as not sufficiently qualified to hold elected office, but they also unwisely voted a number of them into office, and now we see the result.
Voter anger directed at our dysfunctional political process is fine, but it makes no sense to exacerbate the problem by electing hyper-partisan leaders who make matters worse. 

This is equally important when voters cast their votes for president. Voters should avoid making a partisan-fueled, knee-jerk decision that could have lasting consequences. Vote wisely, but more importantly, have realistic expectations for the candidate you choose.

The Problem of Celebrity

As Kim Kardashian prepares for her nuptials to NBA cutie Kris Humphries, and buzz about Jennifer Lopez’s recent divorce continues to adorn grocery store aisles everywhere, 
one question comes to mind:

Why are people so enthralled with the personal lives of celebrities?

I attribute this obsession on the part of the public to what I call “The Problem of Celebrity.” Our society is obsessed with people who have achieved money, success and extraordinary fame. We live vicariously through them. Look no further than the recent fanfare following the sudden death of Amy Winehouse, the reemergence and popularity of R&B singer Chris Brown following his domestic abuse incident, and the distant but not forgotten sex scandal involving golfer Tiger Woods.

Our daily news is an usual blend of savvy headlines like: “President Obama makes sharp remarks about the debt ceiling standoff....” “The victims of Norway are gone but not forgotten....” and “Kim Kardashian finally picks her wedding dress.” You can't be serious.

Who’s to blame for this moronic blend of substantive news and sorority girl antics? 

The public? The media? Or celebrities? Hold that thought.

        

In addition to the denigration of news in the U.S., it’s also a crude reality that people set higher standards for celebrities than they do for themselves. What happens when and if our beloved Kim Kardashian cheats on her reality TV husband? Will we continue to worship her? Or will we knock her off her tinsel town pedestal and treat her with the same disdain as Arnold Schwarzenegger? Again, hold that thought.

The public is notorious for boycotting celebrities when scandals break. We are quick to pass judgment and stop patronizing someone if we get wind they did something we don’t approve of. Because celebrities exhibit a talent, skill or image the everyday Joe or Joanna doesn’t possess, we make modern-day idols out of them and come short of deeming them superhuman. 

Truth is, people feel comfortable playing judge in the lives of celebrities because we have the luxury of seeing their lives and indiscretions played out for the world to see, while our own lives remain private and unbroadcasted. When you have that kind of access and anonymity coupled into one, people feel empowered, and exploit that power to the Nth degree.

Because celebrities have achieved in life what many only dream of, people expect them to be dreamlike in every way. Hence, the constant fanfare and never ending obsession. People feel the need to love everything about a celebrity in order to support them because we expect them to do something we're incapable of: attain perfection. 

We expect celebrities to live up to the hype we’ve created for them.  

And we throw tantrums when they don’t. 

The moment our expectations don’t materialize, we are forced to face the reality that the people we’ve been idolizing are just that: people. Not immortal super heroes, but rather everyday people just like us who garner public attention through the machinery of marketing, distribution and media. 

When faced with this reality, people become disgruntled. Rather than blame ourselves for having unfair and unrealistic expectations, we fault celebrities for not fulfilling our dreams. So who’s the real culprit: the public, the media or celebrities? I'll let you answer that.

Until people accept the fact that celebrities are not perfect, but just as flawed as we are, 
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us. 

And until the public takes more of an interest in news that actually matters, rather than how Kim Kardashian will look in her wedding dress, we’ll continue to be bombarded with more dense reality television.

Until then, it’s only downhill from here. -v7

Partisan Foolishness Drove Debt-Ceiling Debate

Some pundits and the national media have attempted to cast the debate over the nation’s debt ceiling as a philosophical difference in how the two political parties view the role of government in the U.S. In short, the prolonged and bitterly partisan debate over raising the debt ceiling was rooted in conservative or liberal principles about the nation’s economic governance. Baloney!

What we have all witnessed over the past weeks was nothing more than the worst kind of childish and petty political partisanship. The loins share of this divisive behavior was on full display among many Republicans in the House of Representatives who refused to budge (at all) on the issue of including tax increases in any agreed upon debt-reduction plan. Their entrenched opposition was not only out of step with most leading economists; it ran counter to the views of a majority of Americans who, to their credit, sensibly acknowledged that both revenue increases and spending cuts were needed to resolve the debt crisis.

No matter what the political composition of our U.S. Congress at any given time, legislating is often difficult  and will always require compromise to get things accomplished. Ideological intransigence is the very antithesis of sensible compromise.

The reality is that no matter what one’s ideological views -- conservative or liberal -- leaders must always be cognizant of their responsibility to act in the collective public interest. This means that sometimes strongly held ideological views must yield to the higher purpose of working cooperatively "for the greater good" to solve serious problems. The very definition of compromise means that all parties at the negotiation table won’t get everything they desire, but walk away with something.

It would be rather convenient for politicians to hide their base partisan antics under the guise of philosophical principle. But such transparent distortions of political reality don’t fly, and shame on the media for thinking they would.

Change Your Dating Expectations

Change. Too often women complain that their male counterparts should “change.” Women all over the world consistently express a chronic sense of dissatisfaction from men in key areas such as love, sex and monogamy. Women use a variety of mediums and platforms to share their plight and implore men to do a wealth of things such as: be more romantic; become better lovers; and embrace commitment and monogamy. 

I think women should do the changing.

Women should change their standards, expectations and drastically alter their level of tolerance for undesirable behavior. When this is set in motion, women will find that the caliber of men they date and their experiences with them will change - for the better. Women will get much more out of their romantic encounters if they do the changing instead of expecting men to. 

Ladies, instead of expecting more from men, expect more from yourselves.

You’ll be glad you did. -v7

What Happened to Personal Discretion?

It’s official; the art of personal discretion is dead. Face it, we now live in a popular culture where anything goes and everything is ripe for public display. Take a look at almost any reality TV program and you often see young, attractive people degrading themselves on national television in pursuit of a monetary prize or ephemeral fame.

Contestants have been shown engaging in sexually crude behavior, distastefully exposing intimate body parts, using coarse language, speaking disparagingly and disrespectfully about fellow competitors, and sometimes displaying an astounding lack of common sense and class. 

 The notion of exercising personal discretion is simply passé for a generation hooked on camera phones, computer cams, text messaging and other forms of instant communication that allow individuals to engage in graphic show and tells whenever the mood strikes.

A friend was shocked, appalled and dismayed when she heard about the antics of the New Jersey teenager  who was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for posting sexually explicit images of herself on MySpace. My friend couldn’t fathom why a young person would even dare do such a thing, let alone think it was acceptable behavior. But what my friend so innocently failed to grasp was that today’s teenagers have grown up with the Internet and comfortably using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter where putting aspects of one’s private life on public display is the norm. What’s a few nude images between friends, when they can so easily be uploaded at the click of a button? As only a passive user of Facebook myself, I am still amazed at the intimately personal things friends seem compelled to post online. What they want me to know versus what I feel I need to know is often at odds.

Personal discretion has eroded partly because the Internet offers an irresistible venue for freely engaging in narcissism and self-promotion. It provides free self-advertising for those seeking some distorted sense of frame and notoriety. By creating a Webpage or posting images of oneself online, one can escape the shadows of obscurity to become known a entity. It’s like having one’s own personal billboard for all to see.

There was a time when the fear of shame or humiliation used to be a sufficient inhibitor to inappropriate or distasteful public behavior. Take extramarital affairs, for instance. The mistress involved in an extramarital scandal was once a universally scorned figure. Public sympathies were always reserved for the aggrieved wife and the “other woman‘s” identity, if known, often remained discrete or received scant attention. Few women in such situations wanted to be known as the homewrecker who destroyed a marriage.

Today, mistresses have often become minor celebrities. Instead of hiding in the shadows, mistresses brazenly discuss their affairs in public - freely participating in the media spectacle. Rielle Hunter, former fling of presidential candidate John Edwards and mother of the disgraced politician’s love child, gave a tell-all interview to GQ magazine. And look at the parade of women involved in golf superstar Tiger Wood’s tawdry extramarital escapades. Many willingly came forward, seemingly unashamed of their actions, to discuss their sordid affairs in the press.

So where do we go from here? Can we as a society return to our once modest and discrete ways? Sadly, probably not. The ubiquity of the Internet, reality TV and talk shows (where people seem willing to blather on about everything) have essentially blurred -- or obliterated -- the lines between private and public. Leaving little to the imagination is the new norm. These highly public venues also fuel an instant-fame-obsessed mindset that doesn‘t appear to be leaving us any time soon.

When reality TV features everyday people who become household names, regardless of how boorishly or stupidly they behaved on-air, 15-minutes-of-fame seekers will abound, especially when show producers dangle million dollar carrots in their faces. Apparently, illusions of fame and fortune have won out over concerns about self-respect and decency.

Think about it: If the fear of public humiliation and embarrassment isn’t enough to tame crude, lewd and outrageous behavior, nothing will. Like I said, discretion is dead.

Strive to Find Balance in Life

Our blog contributors will cover this topic area.

Voters Undermine Bipartisanship

We’ve all been hearing a lot these days about voters’ frustration with out-of-control partisan rancor in Washington and the failure for elected leaders in Congress to work together to get anything done. It’s a familiar refrain: Voters claim they want leaders to stop bickering and solve the nation’s problems. It all sounds civic-minded and lofty, but the truth is that voters really want nothing of the sort. They characteristically whine about Washington gridlock, but their voting decisions often contribute to, if not help perpetuate, the problem.

But the solution, if the public is truly feed up with partisan politics, is quite simple: Stop returning partisans to Washington! In a two-party system where voters have limited choices, partisan gamesmanship works to the advantage of both ruling political parties.

But voters have an antidote to this perpetual childish political nonsense: They can start electing more independents to Congress. If both political parties know their lock on power is threatened by a viable alternative, they will have no choice but to modify their behavior or risk election defeat and marginalization.
But of course this can’t work if voters keep allowing themselves to be pawns in the partisan political games both parties play to preserve power.

Oprah's Legacy

Oprah Winfrey elevated the talk show genre to a level few have been able to match. Instead of presenting a parade of mindless shows that exploited personal failings and social dysfunction for mere entertainment, Winfrey encouraged, inspired and motivated people to their best potential. She empowered viewers by offering thoughtful, informed and intelligent solutions to everyday struggles and challenges.

In Winfrey, we saw a sensitive and kindhearted humanitarian who used her prominent public position to affect positive change on people's lives and, by extension, the world. That's the great legacy Winfrey leaves behind after 25 years.  Her show will truly be missed.