In a 2008 study of evening and morning network newscasts following the Spitzer scandal, NewsBusters’ Rich Noyes found that within the first week of news coverage Spitzer was only identified as a Democrat 20% of the time. However, within the first 24 hours of Sanford’s confession to having an affair, he was identified as a Republican 100% of the time, during coverage on all the networks.
On Wednesday, the NBC Nightly News, which failed to give Spitzer’s party affiliation for three days following his scandal, immediately focused on Sanford’s national role in the Republican Party as anchor Brian Williams declared: "In a Republican Party hungry for young stars, he was one of them: Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina...Tonight his political career is in tatters. His state, his party are in some turmoil. And Mark Sanford is no longer being mentioned as a possible GOP nominee for the White House."
2. I heard Michael Medved discuss the Sanford story on his radio program last week, as I was driving home from work. I might not be remembering all of the details correctly. For those who don't know, Medved used to be involved in politics. He discussed one campaign he was involved in with, as I recall, thirteen other people. Of those fourteen people, eight got divorced sometime during the campaign. Medved didn't get divorced himself, since he wasn't married at the time, though he was sexually involved with his girlfriend. He estimates that something like half of those involved in politics, regardless of party affiliation, have been involved in adultery at some point. He discussed some of the reasons why politicians would be involved in adultery to an unusual degree, and his reasoning seemed convincing to me. He noted, for example, that politicians travel a lot, are away from their families more than most people are, and are the type of people who are willing to "beg people for money", as I think he put it, in the process of running for office. He suggested that people willing to do what politicians do to get elected and reelected would also be more likely to get involved in behavior like adultery, because of some overlap between such types of behavior. Those who want to influence politicians don't just use money. They use other means of influence as well.
3. Though sexual sin is common and should be taken seriously, I see no reason to consider it the most common sin, and there are dangers to thinking too highly of it, just as there are dangers in thinking too little of it. Many men commit adultery, but, apparently, judging from statistics I've heard over the years, most don't. We should acknowledge our potential to become involved in sexual sin. But we should also be realistic about our potential to avoid it, as Joseph, Daniel, and many other Biblical figures did. We live in a highly sexualized culture, where sexual sin is easily available, in some contexts more easily available than at any other time in history. But many men avoid sexual sins like adultery, and thinking too highly of the significance of such temptations is dangerous, just as it's dangerous to not think highly enough of those temptations. There are other sins that are more common and more destructive than something like lust or adultery, and making sexual temptations out to be more than they actually are is counterproductive. God is more enjoyable and more powerful than all sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment