EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Joys of Repressed Voyeuristic Titillation
There are few things more sickening -- or revealing -- to behold than a D.C. sex scandal. Huge numbers of people prance around flamboyantly condemning behavior in which they themselves routinely engage. Media stars contrive all sorts of high-minded justifications for luxuriating in every last dirty detail, when nothing is more obvious than that their only real interest is vicarious titillation. Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright -- like proud ostriches with their feathers extended -- pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance. The ritual is as nauseating as it is predictable.
What makes the Anthony Weiner story somewhat unique and thus worth discussing for a moment is that, as Hendrick Hertzberg points out, the pretense of substantive relevance (which, lame though it was in prior scandals, was at least maintained) has been more or less brazenly dispensed with here. This isn't a case of illegal sex activity or gross hypocrisy (i.e., David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley (who built their careers on Family Values) or Eliot Spitzer (who viciously prosecuted trivial prostitution cases)). There's no lying under oath (Clinton) or allegedly illegal payments (Ensign, Edwards). From what is known, none of the women claim harassment and Weiner didn't even have actual sex with any of them. This is just pure mucking around in the private, consensual, unquestionably legal private sexual affairs of someone for partisan gain, voyeuristic fun and the soothing fulfillment of judgmental condemnation. And in that regard, it sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figures -- down to the most intimate details -- are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance.
I'd really like to know how many journalists, pundits and activist types clucking with righteous condemnation of Weiner would be comfortable having that standard applied to them. I strongly suspect the number is very small. Ever since the advent of Internet commerce, pornography -- use of the Internet for sexual gratification, real or virtual -- has has been, and continues to be, a huge business. Millions upon millions of people at some point do what Weiner did. I know that's a shocking revelation that will cause many Good People to clutch their pearls in fragile Victorian horror, but it's nonetheless true. It's also true that marital infidelity is incredibly common.
If Chris Matthews or Brian Williams or any politician ever patronized or even visited a porno site on the Internet or had a sexually charged IM chat with someone who isn't their spouse, shouldn't that now be splashed all over the Internet so we can all read it -- not just the fact of its existence but all the gory details? After all, this is about character, judgment, veracity: these are Important Journalists and Politicians, and how can we trust them if they're not even faithful to their spouse? Isn't that the standard now -- the one they're gleefully propagating?
Read the rest of the article at Salon...
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
77 Comments so far
Show AllThanks, Glenn, for maintaining standards of judicial excellence, while calling out the crap for what it is. Smoke and mirrors prevail to effectively cast a cloud thick enough to obscure what should be the serious subjects begging for sane, open discussion in our land.
I usually like Greenwald, but this is ludicrous - everyone on the 'left' - Rachel Maddow, John Stewart, Colbert, etc are rushing to Weiner's defense: "oh, at least he's not a hyprcrite," "oh, he didn't actually have sex with them."
First off, we don't know who he's had sex with - yet. Secondly, they think that not being part of the ostensibly 'family-values party' gets you off the hook when you screw around on your wife.
How about this: Anthony Weiner is pure zionist scum, who tried to get the Palestinian Authority barred from attending the UN, and told them to "start packing their little Palestinian terrorist bags". We're supposed to feel sorry for him because he had to skip the parade celebrating Israeli land theft and ethnic cleansing, so he could stay home and figure out his next round of lies to his constituents. When you've got someone like this, it doesn't matter how they go down: it's a good thing that they go down! Here is a man whose district votes for him because he is "good for Israel." Is he good for the US? They couldn't care less: they are the fifth column in this country. They are Zionists, and they are satanic.
I'll admit it: the "Voyeuristic Titillation" in the headline hooked me.
but there was nothing to see.
so I moved along.
".....sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figures -- down to the most intimate details -- are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance."
Anthony Weiner showed his lack of good judgement by not recognizing this reality. This incident will cost him his seat come election time and rightfully so. Did Rep. Weiner not understand that his actions as a public figure would be scrutinized and held to a higher standard than his constituents? Elected officials need to be beyond reproach in their personal lives or seek other employment.
What sounds judgmental and sanctimonious has reasoned argument as basis. When an elected official has behavior that he is ashamed of, and someone finds him out, he can be blackmailed for years at the expense of the taxpayer. It is said that J. Edgar Hoover had something on everyone and used that information to his advantage.
How much did Schwarzenegger pay to keep his career and governorship intact? At least Arnie used his own money, unlike Edwards. Clinton's lack of judgement should have cost him his job. If Clinton had any class he would have stepped down, but if he had any class there would not have been an issue in the first place.
Anthony Weiner's defense, "I'm not a pervert. I'm you!"
So this requires all the ridiculous melodrama and media hoopla? Your standards are ludicrous. Most congressmen and women are guilty off far worse things that have real world consequences. In fact, this case reveals in all is prurient detail how low the American political discourse has become where asinine TMZ style humiliation has replaced substantive debates on what actually matters.
Weiner is more guilty of being an AIPAC hack. I don't care for his weiner or who he shows it to (and actually didn't, but the news would make you think differently). What I care for is sensible policies and a backbone to go against the enormous pressures brought to bear by the corporations, national security state, and military-industrial complex.
I fully agree, ceti.
I never had a dog, so I can't remember the brand name of this dog food. But during the heyday of "instant" foods there was a long-running teevee ad for a dog food that "made its own gravy". Just add water!
This kind of pseudo-scandal "makes its own gravy" of rationalized supercilious judgement.
It brings me back to the Lewinsky scandal, when supposed paragons of rectitude from both parties scrambled for the high moral ground and righteously thundered that both the sensationalistic mass-media coverage and the condemnation was perfectly justified and appropriate because, "It goes to character!" or "It goes to credibility!"
It is true enough that when any private sexual conduct become public, the victim invariably compounds the emergent scandal with mendacious denials and comparable futile evasive action. But that's part of the "making its own gravy" process too-- it turns the prejudicial propensity to castigate and condemn into a circular, self-fulfilling indictment.
It seems reasonable to condemn the victim, if only for the "cover-up". But even if Weiner had taken responsibility from the beginning, and said, "Yeah, that's me, and it's really nobody's business!" he would've been excoriated for his "questionable" judgement, etc.
As a rule, however creepy, repugnant, and pathetic a given sexual peccadillo is, the concomitant sanctimonious piling-on is even more creepy, repugnant, and pathetic. It's far easier to join the disapproving crowd than to refuse on principle to validate and buy into somebody's manipulative, sleazy "Gotcha!"
It was called "Gravy Train". It's still around.
My understanding is that in Eurpoe, even Edwards levels of "sex scandal" are considered completely non-news.
In the Lewinsky scandal you forgot one - "He's a role model for our children." (Wonder where that concern went to?)
What Greenwald wrote obviously made no impression on you. Keep clutching those Victorian pearls and wagging the finger of shame at others' private sexual lives.
A ludicrous post. If you want an elected official to be "beyond reproach" all you will end up with is those who are crap, or those who are good at concealing.
"What sounds judgmental and sanctimonious has reasoned argument as basis. When an elected official has behavior that he is ashamed of, and someone finds him out, he can be blackmailed for years at the expense of the taxpayer. It is said that J. Edgar Hoover had something on everyone and used that information to his advantage."
Yes. Indeed. Ergo, LGBTs should all resign.
No it isn't reasonable. It is judgmental and sanctimonious. If you are concerned about blackmail, then, that can easily be dealt with by not concerning yourself about people's personal lives.
You're a pervert.
My condolences to his wife of 11 months Huma. Weiner has sabotaged the career of one of the most promising young Muslim women in America.
Another day....another distraction.
Weiner's been married less than a year to a Muslim woman (ha, ha) and already this guy's fooling around on the Net. Says a lot about his character, I say.
[Duplicate post]
What about the character of those who would send other people's children to die in endless war for profit? What about the character of those who write laws protecting criminals who commit economic crimes against millions and then ignore enforcement of laws that protect the freedom of everyone else? What about the character of those who giddily deregulate and privatize everything, even the most basic protections of a civil society--like the environment, education, and medical care--under the guise of making it better?
Weiner (my congressman) was far from perfect as a legislator, but he was a reliable progressive on many issues--as was john edwards. Isn't it obvious by now that purging every last remnant of the left is a goal of the corportist party, which hires bottom-feeders and sociopaths to do its work and pays them gobs of money they otherwise wouldn't be capable of earning? Isn't it obvious that the democrats are just as complicit as the republicans, with their 'unlike the republicans, we are a party that abhors lying' excuse to clean house while they compromise with republicans on dismantling America?
DIANA: Thank you. Your post is heart-felt. Some "experts" tie this interest in public figures' sex lives to America's puritan roots. Perhaps. But as you related, there are FAR WORSE SINS that go on as business as usual. Better someone get laid, even outside of conventional marriage, and maintain a soul... the better from which to enact a humane public policy, then repress all instincts into a dead marriage that presents a proper image, while lending his signature to all the greater atrocities that lead to so much unmitigated suffering in this mad, mad, world!
I wish I could read Wilhelm Reich's postumous responses to all this!
Thank you, Siouxrose. Indeed, it's maddening to listen to analysis that begins with the assumption that Weiner has committed a moral crime, if not a legal one [if Nancy has her way], and the only question remaining is what the consequences will be.
And the fact that so many citizens who are suffering the consequences of an immoral political system get so caught up in this stuff only serves to show the success of our depraved media.
Congressman Weiner is one of the few in Congress who stood up to the insurance company lobbies and endorsed a single-payer heath system. Let us beware of these coordinated slime attacks that have been so effective as a method of political assassination. When a representative of the people can be removed over a jerky e-mail to an adult woman, you know that we have gone through the looking glass. Thanks again, Glen Greenwald
Tony Vodvarka
Weiner was pointing out problems with Clarence Thomas's tax returns relating to his wife. It is easy to send the attack dogs like Breitbart out to respond. As some are saying, Weiner stays while Vitter, Thomas and Boehner stay. Better yet, we take sex off the table as Greenwald suggests.
What is his position with respect to the Palestinians? From what I hear, he's as bad as it gets.
I don't like Jon Stewart's smug liberal BS and his support for this guy either. They are peas in a pod. A disgrace.
Diana - let me correct your first sentence, "What about the character of those who would send other people's children to die in endless war for profit?"
"What about the character of those who would send other people's children to die in endless war for ZIONISM?"
There - feel better about Weiner now?
I understand what you're saying, Green, and I am not defending his Zionism. Indeed, Weiner's Zionism is one of the worst aspects of his tenure and was what I had in mind when I said he was far from perfect. But, as I also said, he was a solid progressive on many other issues, and that counted with me since there are so few progressives in the political class.
If Weiner's politics weren't considered a threat--if he was more like that other New York 'liberal,' the vile and powerful Chuck Schumer--the oligarcy would never have spent a dime giving briebart the job of trying to destroy the man.
"Says a lot about his character, I say."
Or, possibly, seuxual difficulties with his wife. There are marriages which, due to difficulties of a physical or psychological nature, are practically sex-free. Can one blame either spouse for indulging in (hopefully non-sexist/non-exploitative) erotica on the internet?
His private conduct is nobody's goddamn business!
Even Jon Stewart had fun with the Weiner flap last night. But it's tailor made for comedians, and shouldn't be the subject of serious media concerns . . . ok, what planet, or what country do I think this is? But an interesting contrast would be how the Italians don't seem to make a terribly big deal of Berlusconi's philandering and chronic hosting of orgies at his palatial estate outside Milan (see the New Yorker, 6/6/11). There's never been a more sexually addicted exploiter of women than Berlusconi, holding high political office, and yet most Italians just find it annoying and egocentric. They don't get all lathered up with moral outrage, clutching their Victorian pearls and gasping in sexually repressed fright, like the American press corps.
One thing I don't get in all this is how these politicians think they can get away with it. Didn't Weiner know what the Internet is? How could he NOT expect this thing to go viral in a matter of minutes and wreck his career in a few days? Did he think Twitter was some kind of super private net locale, where nobody snoops into anbody's else's business? How dumb can these guys be? Sheesh.
It is amazing how many of these rich well connected politicos believe that what's online is private between them and whoever they're sending to. It's amazing how many people in general don't get that, once something goes into a networked computer, it can be captured, stored on a hard drive, and used against you in the courts of law or public opinion -- including all posts to here.
As for medicinal marijuana (and I used to have a prescription, so I include me in the "probably done for" pile), my thought is that, if they ever decide it is time to round up dissenters, all the people whose names and addresses are on these permission to toke lists will be among those subjected to whatever they're going to subject us to,
1984 is so twentieth century.
Ephraim, you nailed it. It's not his moral lapses that are so repugnant, it's his stupidity.
Ephraim --
I guess by "Weiner flap" you mean he wasn't circumcised.
(sorry -- I just had to.)
I am STILL waiting, now many years later, for some reporter to show some interest in the US policy that led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children - as admitted by Madeleine Albright.
Really, I don't think that those on the TV screens have much knowledge of, or interest in US foreign policy. They often seem like a group of junior high school students who are fascinated by sex, scandal, and trivia. We have been dumbed-down by the Press and reality TV - sort of the Oprahization of America.
monogamy is not the natural condition...
sexual arousal is the basis for human reproduction...
representative democracy is a setup for failure...
congress is a criminal organization...
real investigative journalists end up dead...
this should be no surprise to anyone...
others are doing what this guy did right now...
When you contemplate the contrast between what Weiner is charged with and our system of law-making which has come to be nothing more than legalized bribery, it could make you loose your lunch.
The Democrats yell the loudest when it's a Republican in a sexual scandal because that was the only thing about Clinton the Republicans could find to hang him with, after how many years of trying to find something that could bring him down, and in so doing, hopefully bring down the whole Democratic party in the process. And it was an area they had no business getting into, and it should never have been turned into the media circus it became. His sexcapades were only Hillary's to deal with. So the Republicans opened that door, and now they have to live with it, especially when they indulge as Clinton did.
I've been looking for the longest time, and still haven't found it. Where is this main-stream media people are always talking about?
OK, we won't even ask why Glenn is so passionate about this. There are some good reasons: basic human respect, and our need not to penalize public servants. The standard is low enough already (and Weiner is one of our favorites.)
He makes a good point: that the journalists who blew this up, starting with Breitbart, are now fair game themselves. Back during the Monica & Bill charades, Larry Flynt came up with a very effective countermeasure: he offered a large reward ($100,00?) for proof of similar peccadilloes by Republican congresspeople (one was a woman). Several got outed, and the furor blew over in a hurry.
So does anyone out there have a handsome sum to devote to cleaning up journalism? $10,000 should do it, to the first few who can out some of the journalists, starting with Breitbart, who spent precious electrons (let alone paper) on this latest travesty. And it'll be such fun to read about!
Greenwald paints with an exceedingly broad brush.
I, for one, do not routinely engage in using electronic media to publicise my body parts...about the vast majority of which I am deeply ashamed (I would die...or kill...before displaying myself shirtless). And I am not among the "(h)uge numbers of people (who) prance around flamboyantly condemning (Weiner's) behavior", being of an age and having a neurological condition that prevents my prancing around for any purpose whatever.
My interest in the Weiner debacle is seeing how others, but especially persons of prominence, handle utter degradation and humiliation. (Most of them seem to do it far better than I would...or would if anyone paid any attention to me.)
The Hendrik Hertzberg article which Greenwald cites says,
"By itself, the fact that a person has lied about sex tells you nothing about that person’s general propensity to lie. Unlike most citizens, prominent politicians like Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and Anthony Weiner make speeches by the hundred, give media interviews constantly, and have extensively documented public records. If the politician is a habitual or characterological liar, the public record will show it and the lying-about-sex is redundant. If the politician is not a habitual or characterological liar, his lying-about-sex is misleading—is itself a lie, in a way."
Greenwald might have let it go at that.
"I, for one, do not routinely engage in using electronic media to publicise my body parts...about the vast majority of which I am deeply ashamed (I would die...or kill...before displaying myself shirtless). And I am not among the "(h)uge numbers of people (who) prance around flamboyantly condemning (Weiner's) behavior", being of an age and having a neurological condition that prevents my prancing around for any purpose whatever."
Greenwald do not say EVERYONE. Apparently, your reading comprehension is as bad as your hate of your bodyt.
Greenwald do not say EVERYONE.
You could have stopped there. Why was the next sentence necessary?
This article and comments have softened me up on the Weiner question. So to speak.
Like many others, I've been inclined to condemn Weiner because he lied. But on further reflection, sexual activity is nobody's business but the participants'. It may be plausibly argued that the perps are perfectly justified in lying about their affairs.
A more brazen perp might say, "Mind your own business, you pervs." That's what I intend to say, when my innumerable liaisons with the most beautiful movie stars in the world come out. Then I'll write a tell-all book, of course.
I'm just glad there's nothing important happening that we should be focused on.
No kidding!! I'd like to see some of our "journalists" go after Ryan with such intensity, or Obama for that matter.
Remember when the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky scandal was grabbing all the headlines? The minutes of the trial were published online - and all the sexually explicit parts of the testimony were highlighted.
Of course, this was done so that parents could protect their children from reading the naughty bits ....HaHaHaHa!
I have a cartoon that was published in my hometown paper during that time. It's two kids, one looking at a newspaper. That kid asks, "What's oral sex?" The other kid answers, "Oh, I think that's when they talk about it."
As Phil Rockstroh points out, there is no outrage that Bradley Manning is forced to remain nude in front of his captors, but a picture of someone's underwear causes a media frenzy.
Coincidence? I think not!
We talk about what we're told to talk about by the corporate media, and, as others have pointed out, even half-way liberals are being targeted.
Free Bradley Manning!
The American Press has exercised tremendous restraint by not publishing photos of a nude Pvt. Bradley Manning standing in the brig at parade rest. I'm going right out to buy a newspaper.
Trylon
Puritanical Rubbish Brought To The GooD OLe United States.
Good thing I have a channel changer.
I hear you pilgrim.
Kenny Rogers. Anybody remember that matter?
I am deeply disappointed that Common Dreams published even a single article about Mr. Weiner whose name in German means "crybaby" (weinen = to cry).
The voyueristic media flap over Congressman Weiner's weiner was one of those news stories that I instantly vowed to ignore the first time I heard about it. I just don't follow the twists and turns about the most recent blonde coed reported mysteriously missing and feared dead on spring break vacation somewhere in the Caribbean, the parents' tearful prayers for news on the whereabouts of their teenager who may be a runaway, or the latest scandal over who got caught redhanded philandering in flagrante delicto with whose spouse in Hollywood, DC, or in the local country club set. I simply turn my attention off. I really do.
Nonetheless, I think Glenn Greenwald makes some excellent points here about the qualitative change in what now passes for newsworthy American journalism over the last several decades. It has become a nauseating, predictable ritual, a feeding frenzy of repressed titillation once there's a scent of some public figure's blood in the water. Glenn's right. We have now completely dispensed with any pretense that there's substantive relevance. Now we are treated to an infotainment sex scandal purely for sport and diversion.
The New York Review of Books recently ran reviews of a couple of books concerning the marriage of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. Hated as FDR was in high places by powerful enemies, it is still amazing to me that throughout his presidency he was never in published photographs in a wheelchair or on crutches. It is similarly remarkable that the first couple's sex life was also completely off limits. Nary a mention about Franklin's mistresses and laisons. No whisper of Eleanor's long time love relationship with a female journalist who actually lived in the White House family wing for many months. And Eleanor Roosevelt was hated even more virulently in high and low places than Franklin. Still, no news coverage.
And it wasn't just because of the war. The Roosevelts' marriage had privately imploded over infidelity in 1918. People knew. Journalists of all partisan persuasion knew. But such things were just not publicized. So long as there was no divorce, it was nobody's business but their own.
Things certainly changed in the latter half of the 20th Century - from Gary Hart through Bill Clinton to the present gotcha journalism scene. We end up with bread and circuses and gossip for the masses while the empire stumbles and slides into twilight.
Bill from Saginaw
I have avoided reading everything I can about this "scandal" but didn't he mail a pic of himself with his shirt off? Is that it? Seriously?
Glen is always on the money, IMO, and this is another great example.
He doesn't go into it, but he does mention that these clucking, self-righteous, knobs could be covering so many other perfectly crucial realities that they don't touch--most to them are not able. So this is one way for them to splash their ludicrous moral indignation all around, and you really get the feeling that they know they need to make up for the fact that true horrors are happening right before their eyes and either they are too dumb, or too sold out to be able to comment. Pathetic.