Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could

There is an ongoing debate on the effects of scandals—political, economic, or cultural— among the members of society. Some might contend that scandals can ultimately call our collective attention to dire problems that need to be addressed immediately, thereby contributing to making society for the better. At the surface level, this argument seems justifiable; in fact, history provides us with ample evidence where scandals have served chiefly to redress the wrong in society. Nevertheless, it would be more reasoned to argue that, on balance, scandals are not necessarily superior to a well-informed, dispassionate reformer or speaker.

Firstly, considering the unexpected costs that scandals could bring out, they are not as effective as dispassionate social reformers in resolving critical problems that surface in society. The inevitable result of scandals often involves high expenses to taxpayers and tarnished reputation of innocent victims. Even though scandals might seem effective in debunking social problems, one should compare their “effectiveness” with that of reasonable, discrete social reformers. A slow and dispassionate reform, in contrast with scandals, implies that there would be lower tax expenditure for fixing social systems and fewer innocent victims. Some advocates of scandals might attempt to exaggerate their benefits, while masking the costs incurred by them. However, historical evidence shows us reform works more benefit than scandals in addressing social issues. For instance, in the UK the public healthcare system was involved in unprecedented scandals for its failure in serving patients during the 1980s. However, it was a series of reforms that continuously improved the quality of the public care system, avoiding the risk of increasing the unnecessary costs for the reform.

Secondly, scandals can sometimes distract the members of society from focusing on more pressing societal or community issues. One needs to realize that scandals are often provoked and incited by entities whose chief objective is to maximize their own self-interest—lobbyists or large corporations who do not have the best interests of society in their mind. They might in turn attempt to call society’s collective attention to less dire, imminent problems that we would otherwise neglect. Some other urgent problems, such as global warming or racial discrimination, often give their way to other scandals that are propagated by these interest-seeking entities. Admittedly, scandals can serve to rectify some sorts of social concerns that need to be addressed immediately. History has shown that some political scandals involving debate on the powers and duties of public officials were useful in addressing such issues. However, in my observation, these cases are limited; in fact, in many cases scandals are manipulated by those who pursue to seek their interests at the expense of the general public.

All in all, scandals in some cases are powerful in that they can initiate social reforms by exposing the dark side of society. However, when compared with other reformers or speakers, in fact they might not be as advantageous as expected. Sometimes scandals induce members of society to put a priority on less critical issues. Besides, scandals can put an excessive burden on innocent victims or a nation’s legal and tax systems. Thus, it would be prudent to judge the effectiveness of scandals in comparison with reformers on a case-by-case basis.