NBC Fires Matt Lauer

Meh ... price of fame.

 

He's fat?

 

Tiger's sex life was a story because of the hypocrisy it exposed. Since birth he's been made out to be a kind of golfing Jesus. Not so much.

Who are "the little people" we should hang out with? I need to hang out with the maids from every hotel someone has stayed at, just in case they were assaulted by someone? I get the idea in theory. I don't get the approach in practice. I can't meet everybody someone has ever met. And I sure as shit can't approach random strangers and ask them if they were ever sexually assaulted by someone I'm writing about.

 

The issue is not marital infidelity. That is not news.
Wrongdoing - harassment. Not reporting on the open secrets.
Including, when something does break, minimizing or failing to look into allegations that 'this kind of thing is rampant.'
That is the parallel between PEDs and sexual harassment.

Drinking, recreational drug use, marital trouble or infidelity? Not news.

 

I edited "everybody" to "anybody" ... but your point is well-taken. I suppose it's a moot issue now, though ... anybody reporting on any biggie has feelers (ha!) out there for stuff like this (I'd assume).

 

Conjecture: It is revealed that the scurrilous rumors concerning Herself's relationship with Huma Abedin are actually true. News or not?

 

Because in person he's hugely likeable and kind, and he has a history of doing good work, both in his chosen profession and outside of it. Everybody likes him. He's like Sandra Bullock. If someone said Sandra Bullock was cruel to animals, I'd be fucking shocked. You have impressions of people, and when they turn out to be wrong, you're surprised by it.

I don't think journalists should accept the surface view of anybody. I also don't think we should assume that all people are closet sadists.

 

Hold on. I'm getting that out on Twitter right now.

 

Seriously, though, I'd trust the in-person version of a highly successful actor even less than usual. There's a reason they're called actors.

 

There's a lot of nuance here to sift through, and I don't think some kind of overhaul is necessary or possible.

But I'd offer this small thought: Celebrities are generally - not always, but generally - as messed up or more messed up in their personal lives than most people, and the relatively recent presumption that they're particularly or uniquely wise about, say, anything - parenting, juggling work/life, politics, anything - is a bad one. This extends to professional athletes that I believe sometimes have borderline blushworthy, almost childish opinions about certain political issues. (Much like our president.) So I think the less we ask these people about these things, the better it is.

And maybe, on some level, that is more transactional. Maybe it's slightly less "personal." I'm OK with that trade though.

 

Two guys Mrs. Whitman and I agreed we would be devastated to hear swept up in this:

Bruce Springsteen
Eddie Vedder

 

More seriously, I understand there is a difference between practical and philosophical on these things.
I don't think Clinton's sex life is news, his or hers, is news until it comes up in the context of sexual harassment allegation and/or lawsuit or if it compromises an elected's position.

However, there is an audience for the info. It becomes news from a practical standpoint because there is an audience even if it is not news from a philosophical view.

I don't care what the president does with a consenting adult who's is not his/her wife.
I do care what the president does with interns when those actions might be part of an inappropriately sexualized work environment in the White House and a belief by subordinates that there are quid pro quo expectations.
And I expect the president to answer questions about his/her sex life truthfully when he/she is being sued for sexual harassment.