Scandal Fatigue

May 12, 2005 2:42 AM

Maybe there's a time for NewsFilter, maybe there isn't; but can we all agree that posts about politicians' sex lives are a complete waste of space and time?
posted by nthdegx to MetaFilter-Related at 2:42 AM (66 comments total)

OK.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:43 AM on May 12, 2005

.
posted by cbrody at 3:32 AM on May 12, 2005

Yes.
Well, no.
I mean, you know, I agree, but can we all agree on anything?
posted by bunglin jones at 3:59 AM on May 12, 2005

Sorry, can't agree on that.
posted by caddis at 4:45 AM on May 12, 2005

But where would it end?

First you can't talk about politicians sex lives, then diplomats, commentators... Eventually people will be saying we can't even talk about the big unit's. (where did that Matt's baby thread go anyway)
posted by Chuckles at 4:48 AM on May 12, 2005

Sex lives yes.

Hypocrisy (a chief executive who lies under oath, or a gay politicians who panders to anti-gay prejudice) no.
posted by orthogonality at 4:49 AM on May 12, 2005

I don't think I can agree. I think *any* topic, put forth in a well-thought-out and researched link (and goes beyond a single newsfilter post) has the potential to be quite interesting.

Unless it were a post about a politician having sex with me...which would just be embarassing and potentially very gross.
posted by tpl1212 at 4:50 AM on May 12, 2005

Possible further amendment: As long as that sex life is consensual.
posted by catachresoid at 5:09 AM on May 12, 2005

We should only have posts about attractive people having sex. So that rules out politicians and Michael Jackson.
posted by dodgygeezer at 5:25 AM on May 12, 2005

No, we can't. Why shouldn't we?
posted by octobersurprise at 5:28 AM on May 12, 2005

I very much want to know about politicians' sex lives. So, you know, no.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:36 AM on May 12, 2005

If a politician has sex with a mongoose I want to know I am free to discuss it here, dammit.
posted by ColdChef at 5:47 AM on May 12, 2005

Overgeneralizations are always a bad thing. And blanket restrictions should never, ever be imposed.
posted by yhbc at 5:53 AM on May 12, 2005

No.
posted by languagehat at 6:02 AM on May 12, 2005

Well, at first I thought it said "can we all agree that politicians' sex lives are a complete waste of space and time" so of course I would agree to that. Otherwise, no, we can't all agree on this (or anything else). What planet have you been living on?

yhbc, you always say that.
posted by dg at 6:04 AM on May 12, 2005

yhbc, you always say that.

Indeed -- and I'm not talking about a blanket restriction but simply complaining that a single-link post to a non-entity of a news story is the arse-end of the NewsFilter cesspool. There have been quite a few of these posts lately. It's very very depressing to think that some of us are actually interested.
posted by nthdegx at 6:13 AM on May 12, 2005

As a rule, at least since Lewinsky, it's only a waste of time if the politician is of the same ideological bent as the complaintant.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:21 AM on May 12, 2005

If you're going to call out a post or posts, you should probably provide links.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:24 AM on May 12, 2005

If you're going to call out a post or posts, you should probably provide links.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:24 AM PST on May 12 [!]

I completely disagree.
posted by nthdegx at 6:34 AM on May 12, 2005

Eh. I can't agree with the blanket ban. This is potentially a big story - IF corroboration arrives. With this contentious candidacy on a tightrope, I'd say it was worth the risk to have the thread there as a placeholder for further developments.

If it turns out to be nothing but unsubstantiated rumor, then we'll probably all say in retrospect, yeah, that thread was unnecessary. But that still doesn't mean such threads should never be started.
posted by soyjoy at 6:54 AM on May 12, 2005

nthdegx writes "It's very very depressing to think that some of us are actually interested [in politician sex newsfilter]."

It's very very depressing to think that some people are interested in NASCAR and not Chess Club. Or in Britney's Spheres and not the Goldberg Variations. Or that some people like snails and not oysters.

It's not that I think other people don't enjoy these kinds of posts. To the contrary, I'm depressed because I realize they do enjoy this tripe.

Yes, these people seem to enjoy things I don't, things that make me pity and despise their tastes. Rather than letting them enjoy the tawdry frivolities I am tastefully above, I want to save them from having tastes different than mine, so let's just not post anything that isn't to my taste.
posted by orthogonality at 6:54 AM on May 12, 2005

Politicians have sex lives?
posted by loquacious at 7:07 AM on May 12, 2005

can we all agree that posts about...?

I think it's safe to assume that the only thing Metafilter can agree on is that we can't agree on anything.
posted by crunchland at 7:47 AM on May 12, 2005

I'm surprised Repubs have sex lives, let alone politicians.

I'm still getting over Roy Cohn, Arthur Finkelstein, Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon and Jim West, frankly.

Well, not so much Jeff Gannon, but certainly the rest...
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:59 AM on May 12, 2005

Ack, orthogonality -- that's a bit of a stretch -- I'm not saying my tastes are above anyone else's, but it is certainly true to say that there are much more low-brow sites around than MeFi and that posts like this probably wouldn't appear too out of place at them. I'm happy to skip all manner of posts that don't interest me, but I think certain subjects set bad precedents and are quite simply bad for MetaFilter. If enough of the membership finds this interesting then I'll respectfully, and disappointedly withdraw my request.

And to clarify again, I'm not asking for a ban -- I'm asking that the community think twice before linking to news stories that aren't even news-worthy.
posted by nthdegx at 8:19 AM on May 12, 2005

"I think it's safe to assume that the only thing Metafilter can agree on is that we can't agree on anything."

WRONG!!!

We simply refuse to agree on anything. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:28 AM on May 12, 2005

I'm depressed because I realize they do enjoy this tripe.

And what exactly is the problem with tripe? I think you need a nice bowl of menudo or pho.
posted by casu marzu at 8:48 AM on May 12, 2005

No. Not.at.all.

If our sex lives are being discussed in the halls of Congress and the courts and on the airwaves, then their sex lives can be discussed here--especially when they're saying one thing, but doing the opposite.
posted by amberglow at 8:58 AM on May 12, 2005

And often sex-lives stories are not about sex, but about power and privilege and abuse of that power and privilege.
posted by amberglow at 8:59 AM on May 12, 2005

The mulefucker is the feel good story of the year so far. More of that, I say.
posted by mr.marx at 9:11 AM on May 12, 2005

I was going to opine that we could all agree that x=x, but I'm sure there are some math types who would have a counterexample.

I'm not so silly as to think that we could all agree that to have a callout, you have to have a post to call out, but I still wish that you would provide links. Otherwise, there's no reason to think that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
posted by anapestic at 9:17 AM on May 12, 2005

Hypocrisy should never be off limits.
posted by bshort at 9:21 AM on May 12, 2005

No. They seem to bring out the best in sgt. serenity, for one.
posted by y2karl at 9:23 AM on May 12, 2005

"Mulefucker" is my Indian name.
posted by bardic at 9:37 AM on May 12, 2005

: )
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:40 AM on May 12, 2005

nthdegx writes "Ack, orthogonality -- that's a bit of a stretch -- I'm not saying my tastes are above anyone else's, but it is certainly true to say that there are much more low-brow sites around than MeFi and that posts like this probably wouldn't appear too out of place at them."

Your point is well taken.

Still, I'll argue that there are sex stories -- which I neither care about or care to see -- and there are stories where the sex is linked to abuse of the office, which I think are valuable to post.
posted by orthogonality at 10:15 AM on May 12, 2005

Still, I'll argue that there are sex stories -- which I neither care about or care to see -- and there are stories where the sex is linked to abuse of the office orifice, which I think are valuable to post.
posted by schyler523 at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2005

I, for one, welcome our kinky overlords and their scandalous sex lives.

Mind you, the Larry Flynt story was a waste of precious space-time and really lacking in meaty, smutty goodness.
posted by warbaby at 10:49 AM on May 12, 2005

I banged Stephanie Hearseth once. She was drunk.
posted by delmoi at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2005

"This is potentially a big story - IF corroboration arrives. "

I would like to continue pretending this is still considered a shitty justification for a post, please.
posted by majick at 11:12 AM on May 12, 2005

As long as there's an exception for really juicy sex scandals, I can probably get behind that.
posted by absalom at 11:20 AM on May 12, 2005

The Bolton-group-sex post was indeed a pretty weak FPP. Still, any opportunity to poke fun at Bolton's suspicious moustache is valid in my books...
posted by clevershark at 12:05 PM on May 12, 2005

delmoi writes "I banged Stephanie Hearseth once. She was drunk."

We only care if you can honestly tell us that you banged John Bolton once :-) if you did please tell us which set of drapes the carpet matches please.
posted by clevershark at 12:07 PM on May 12, 2005

Perhaps we need a baseline for comparison.

My alltime favorite is Nelson Rockefeller meets the Grim Reaper. Now, that was a Grade A scandal.
posted by warbaby at 12:38 PM on May 12, 2005

Community consensus: 'sure, because it lets us toss a bunch of juicy ad-homs around without even pretending to tie them into an argument'.

-- cut thread here --
posted by darukaru at 12:48 PM on May 12, 2005

More sex stories, I say! Less politicians!

*fwap fwap fwap*
posted by graventy at 1:15 PM on May 12, 2005

Nope. Not with the constant parade of dirt coming out. Where would we get our enraged titilation?
posted by Gucky at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2005

My alltime favorite is Nelson Rockefeller meets the Grim Reaper. Now, that was a Grade A scandal.

That was the best one! : >

And that other 70s one--Fanny someone--a whore/stripper?, and the Capitol fountain?
posted by amberglow at 2:19 PM on May 12, 2005

oh, and Gary Hart/Donna Rice/Monkey Business was good too.
posted by amberglow at 2:21 PM on May 12, 2005

Fanny Foxx, I think. Wilbur Mills? Hard to keep track, though.
posted by anapestic at 2:22 PM on May 12, 2005

I think the definition of NewsFilter has become a little out of wack. The NewsFilter charge arose when we had folks posting links right off the CNN homepage and that pretty much sucked. But now (assuming this MeTa was engendered by the Bolton/Flynt thread) the term is being applied to items which will never make CNN. Until some real evidence is produced the group sex angle cannot be reported (and even then it's likely not to be touched by main stream media), so it's probably not something "most people" would have seen before. And group sex, especially involving a high-level Bush appointee, certainly holds interest for a segment of the community and might warrant discussion.

So, while it probably isn't yesterday's best post, it fit the guidelines of a (potentially at least) good post as defined by Number 1. There's no reason to call it a "complete waste of space and time."

Did someone mention a parade?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:32 PM on May 12, 2005

Here's the Washington Post's bipartisan Guide to Capital Scandal

"More, more, I'm still not satisfied..." - T. Leher
posted by warbaby at 2:52 PM on May 12, 2005

Nope. Not with the constant parade of dirt coming out. Where would we get our enraged titilation?

Whoa, that is some serious juice, Gucky.
posted by y2karl at 2:52 PM on May 12, 2005

We simply refuse to agree on anything. ;-P
That is simply not true.
posted by dg at 2:56 PM on May 12, 2005

Gucky, you should post that to the front page--he's the one who got the FDA to deny the Plan B contraceptive. (I guess if he's just raping women in the ass, he feels they don't need it? Appalling)
posted by amberglow at 3:48 PM on May 12, 2005

Gucky, put it with warbaby's rundown : >
posted by amberglow at 3:52 PM on May 12, 2005

All right, not OK, then. It's all good.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2005

We only care if you can honestly tell us that you banged John Bolton once

Trust me: if you bang John Bolton you make damn sure it happens more than once. Oh my stars, what that magic moustache can do...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:23 PM on May 12, 2005

Bolton strikes me as lasting for 30 seconds, tops. (and he likes it rough too, i bet)
posted by amberglow at 5:01 PM on May 12, 2005

Yes, but he has about a five second refractory period. It's like watching someone turn a hose on and off. Over and over and over...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:22 PM on May 12, 2005

I gotta agree with If I Had An Anus, here. News does not equal NewsFilter. In fact, you can even search MeTa to find that post from #1 where has asks people to stop calling NewsFilter all the time. The problem is that there were like 30 posts a day to just random news items with no indication of why it was metafilter worthy. It's ok to ask people why they thought the post was worth bringing up, but on the whole and in the main it's entirely possible for an interesting new article to be worth the attention of the community.
posted by shmegegge at 5:36 PM on May 12, 2005

Oh, and I think politicians' sex lives are fine for MeFi.
posted by shmegegge at 5:37 PM on May 12, 2005

OK, enough contention.

What we all need right now is a sexy accordionist chick.
posted by jonmc at 5:39 PM on May 12, 2005

See, she makes you smile, you can't help it. Accordions, ukuleles, and burlesque nudity, the secret to world peace.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on May 12, 2005

That accordian is just an accident waiting to happen.
posted by dodgygeezer at 12:48 AM on May 13, 2005

"Yes, but he has about a five second refractory period. It's like watching someone turn a hose on and off. Over and over and over..."

Oh, thanks for that imagery. Really. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

"That accordian is just an accident waiting to happen."

Accident? Or "accident"?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:57 AM on May 13, 2005