Sex Scandal and CH 4

[Stanley Kritzik]

Not satisfied with "Storm Team 4", which often reports .... nothing unusual -- except that all the time, we DO have (gasp) weather -- CH 4 has labelled the Police Chief's "zipper problem" as a "Sex Scandal"!

Horrors!  The fact that no one has been arrested for adultery for some 40 or 50 years is beside the point.  (Yes, it is still a crime -- at least on the books.)  The statistics are that some 70% of males are unfaithful to their marriage vows at least once, and it's reasonable to assume that most are not hitting on unmarried teen-age girls.

In this case, the Chief and his lady friend will have their hands full at home, of course, and the course in "Journalism Ethics" is probably over, but the Chief's actions have little to do with his job performance, since he was not involved with a criminal or a subordinate on the police force or an under-age minor.

So, we can label it what we want, but a "Sex Scandal"?  It harks back to the days of Valentine Wells, who was on the City's payroll, and screened and edited all the area movies at the behest of the Catholic church.

With Milwaukee the Nation's center for unwed teen-age mothers, we should pay attention to the aspects of human sexuality (and contraception) that really matter.

Stan

[tbarney]

What exactly does this have to do with Milwaukee HDTV Programming?  I think this would be a better fit if posted in "On/Off Topic Chit-Chat".

[Tom Snyder]

This thread has been moved to the appropriate forum.

[ArgMeMatey]

It wouldn't be much of a story if she were a married food reporter having sex with a married ball-bearing salesman.  But that's not the case, and that's the first reason why it is news.  

Based on the reporting I have seen, there was some interval when both parties could have been subject to extortion or blackmail.  That is a second reason why it's news.  

Of course if "we" had a less judgmental attitude toward extramarital sex, those risks wouldn't be there.  But should we go back to a time when the media looked the other way, or simply failed to report something that might be relevant?  It's a can of worms.  

It would be nice to think that WTMJ et al wouldn't try to use other peoples problems to make money, but that's pretty much the first 15 minutes of the newscast, isn't it?  There is this whole question of whether media shapes opinion or simply reports facts, and the truth is that it's some of both.  We can comment and condemn but until we stop watching the gossip and stop patronizing the sponsors the message goes nowhere.  

The chief did something stupid because he's a public figure and ought to know that in Milwaukee, any time he shows poor judgment, it's going to be news.  

The reporter did something stupid because she put her sexual desires before her career.  

Presumably they both violated the marriage contract as well, but thankfully that is between them and their spouses.