prompt:Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
There have always been scandals in history from ancient to modern society. Speakers and reformers try to make the world better. Do the scandals, however, can give a society a good orientation as they do? One could argue that scandals are not useful unless they prevent other similar ones from emerging. In fact, since watergate happened, we affix -gate to a similar scandals, which means there have happened many political scandals involving funding money for election illegally even after the watergate:it couldn't stop the similar political scandals by making people think it's really big problem.
However, even if scandals cannot change society better, they are still useful because the characteristics of scandals interest people and they eventually reveal the society's problem over time. People are more likely to hear what scandals say than what speakers and reformers say because scandal include the demolition of people with power and money, which interest the public. No speaker or refomer could make people talk about some issues as scandals do. For example, although there might be awalys inappropriate relationship between politicians and actress, people won't talk until a scandal about it really happened.
Also the statement is true in the sense that one can realize what the members of the society valued watching how a scandals occurred, going on, and finished. A celebrity in Korea used to gamble, which is illegal in the country;he used to come back to the screen after disappointing apologies. What permenantly oust him from TV was his lie about his gambling. Former US president Richard Nixon had to resign from presidency not because of illegal campaign funding, but his lying to cover it up. These two incidents reveal the fact that any public person who lied can never be forgiven and what people demand to public person is honesty. And two different consequences of two political scandals involving president-watergate and clinton's sex scandal-show that people value more politicians' honesty than the commitment to their marrige life which is in their private life.
A scandal might not change the society dramatically. But they shock people and lead them to see what's really going on inside the group with power, which make us contemplate the problems the society have. And we also come to know our values and moral priority which could be a standard on which we make decisions through scandals. So, in that regard, I stronly agree with the statement that scandals can be useful.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
There have always been scandals in history from ancient to modern society. Speakers and reformers try to make the world better. Do the scandals, however, can give a society a good orientation as they do? One could argue that scandals are not useful unless they prevent other similar ones from emerging. In fact, since watergate happened, we affix -gate to a similar scandals, which means there have happened many political scandals involving funding money for election illegally even after the watergate:it couldn't stop the similar political scandals by making people think it's really big problem.
However, even if scandals cannot change society better, they are still useful because the characteristics of scandals interest people and they eventually reveal the society's problem over time. People are more likely to hear what scandals say than what speakers and reformers say because scandal include the demolition of people with power and money, which interest the public. No speaker or refomer could make people talk about some issues as scandals do. For example, although there might be awalys inappropriate relationship between politicians and actress, people won't talk until a scandal about it really happened.
Also the statement is true in the sense that one can realize what the members of the society valued watching how a scandals occurred, going on, and finished. A celebrity in Korea used to gamble, which is illegal in the country;he used to come back to the screen after disappointing apologies. What permenantly oust him from TV was his lie about his gambling. Former US president Richard Nixon had to resign from presidency not because of illegal campaign funding, but his lying to cover it up. These two incidents reveal the fact that any public person who lied can never be forgiven and what people demand to public person is honesty. And two different consequences of two political scandals involving president-watergate and clinton's sex scandal-show that people value more politicians' honesty than the commitment to their marrige life which is in their private life.
A scandal might not change the society dramatically. But they shock people and lead them to see what's really going on inside the group with power, which make us contemplate the problems the society have. And we also come to know our values and moral priority which could be a standard on which we make decisions through scandals. So, in that regard, I stronly agree with the statement that scandals can be useful.