The People Who Can Do No Wrong
February 19th, 2010
Email this article to a friend
“You cannot do anything to make America not like you. You’re one of those people…[like] Charlie Sheen…I always kid him. I say ‘You could beat a nun to death in a pile of dead puppies’ and America would just go, ‘Oh that Charlie, we love him, he’s hysterical!’…and you’re the same way.”
- Bill Maher to Brad Pitt
Yesterday’s post How To Ruin Your Reputation Instantly And Permanently was about how easy it is to shatter your reputation by acting unethically for a short term gain. In the comments, Chad at Sentient Money said:
“True, but reputation is secondary to making money. If you can make money for someone else they will hire you even if you are a baby killer…sure there are companies who won’t hire ‘baby killers who make money,’ but there are tons that will. Just ask Goldman Sachs, GE, Morgan Stanley, Citi, virtually any of the oil companies and large international construction firms, the Fed, etc.”
While I’m not exactly thrilled that this is true, it definitely is. And that got me thinking about why people vary so much in their ability to get away with things. Of course, money is one way to get a free pass.
I’m normally not a fan of ruining someone’s career just because they slipped up and said something they shouldn’t have, but John Rocker would be an exception. It would be hard to come up with something more racist, homophobic, and sexist than what he said about New York in 2000.
But when people speculated about whether it would ruin his career, a common thought was “Yeah, but he still throws the ball at 95 miles per hour.” Translation: he makes money, so he’s untouchable.
His career did fall apart, but only because his pitching performance declined, not because of what he said. (BTW, I haven’t closely followed many of the stories referenced in this post, so correct me if I’m wrong on anything.)
If John Rocker is someone who got off too easy, Tiger Woods is someone who’s taking far more heat than he deserves. Yeah, affairs are bad, I get that. But I haven’t heard a decent explanation as to why what Tiger did is so much worse than what David Letterman did.
What is so different in Tiger’s case? Is it the number of affairs? Is it because he has more money and therefore more responsibility? Is it because his image was a bit more squeaky clean?
The main reason I’m hearing is that Letterman apologized before the public found out. But what difference does that make? He only did it because he had been caught and knew the truth was coming out whether he liked it or not.
Do you really feel that Tiger Woods owes you an apology? His wife certainly, but why is it any of our business? (I just learned that he’s issuing an apology later today, though I doubt it will change anything.)
Chad also said, “In 2 years no one will care that Tiger Woods got caught having a massive number of affairs. He will get back all his sponsors and more.” Yes, I believe so, assuming that his performance doesn’t tank from staying out of the game too long, losing focus, etc. But today, why is it such a huge controversy compared to some much worse offenses?
Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and no one really cared. In fact, his first fight out of prison set a pay-per-view record of $63 million. And his career wasn’t ruined by biting off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear, assaulting two people in a road rage attack, throwing punches after the bell, knocking down a referee, failing one drug test and refusing to take another, racking up more sexual assault accusations, or saying he wanted to eat Lennox Lewis’ children. Nope, his career ended only when his performance declined.
But it’s not just money making ability that gives someone immunity. There’s something else, though I’m not sure what. Why can Brad Pitt and Charlie Sheen do no wrong, while other people of similar stature pay dearly for offenses that should be within the bounds of forgiveness?
John Kerry’s 2008 presidential hopes were dashed when he waited too long to apologize for a botched joke. Seriously? Why is that even an issue?
On the other hand, George W. Bush got re-elected after, in some peoples’ minds, bombing the World Trade Center. (No, I don’t think he deserves any blame for the 9/11 attacks, but a lot of people think it was his fault for ignoring the threat and allowing it to happen, and some people actually think he planned it…people like Charlie Sheen.)
Shock jock Don Imus found that your immunity can wear off. He was fired for his infamous “nappy headed hos” comment, despite apologizing immediately. Yeah, it’s offensive, and I’m certainly not a fan of his, but that comment was consistent with the material that won him honors such as a place in Talkers magazine’s 25 greatest radio talk show hosts of all time. So why did the line suddenly move for him? He’s said some things that were far worse, without much consequence.
Does anyone really expect Simon Cowell to apologize to everyone he’s judged?
Anyway, if anyone knows what the rules are, let me know.
February 19th, 2010 at 6:02 am
The rules are, if you are a celebrity, the rules no longer apply.
Why is it that football player can be caught doing drugs, but not do any jail time or lose his job? Any other person, both would apply to them.
It’s a horrible double standard in our society. One that has baffled and appalled me for years.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:05 am
There are no rules. There are just slow news days and people who will take any opportunity to gain publicity for themselves.
Don Imus didn’t get in trouble because of what he said. He got in trouble because there was nothing else to talk about and the Rutgers coach saw an opportunity to market herself (the players didn’t seem to care).
John Kerry lost the election because he was continuously a week behind the news. Not just over his botched joke, but over every development of the campain. He seemed lost, and people don’t want the lost guy who reacts slowly to lead them.
No one cares about the average Joe. You have to have a reputation before you can worry about ruining it.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Hunter … the rules are that there are no rules and that line of dismal actions is constantly sliding back and forth though more forth than back.
As we go forward in this life I have seen the slippery slope get slimier and with that our own values keep going down that slope too, but not at a rate that is noticeable…yet. We have not quite hit terminal velocity yet…but we are getting close to that tipping point.
As we look back at how our society has changed in just the last ten years, it gives rise to what it may look like in the next five.
What use to be appalling is now just an everyday occurrence and today what may appall us tomorrow will be just another run of the mill occurrences.
It seems as though society is slipping back into to bubbling pot of subtle slime from whence it came.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Glad I could help.
I really like this post. It raises a lot of very interesting and important questions. There are actually questions within questions.
The one question that always pops up for me on this topic of ethical/moral business/work behavior is: has it always been like this, but we didn’t know it because we had less access to the information until 15 years ago? Who knew anything about J.P. Morgan at the beginning of the 20th century? Not many people outside of his circle and they weren’t going to talk. I bet no one at that time knew, or put up a fuss, about Morgan creating the Fed all by himself. I would bet 50 years ago we would have never found out anything about Tiger’s affairs.
However, it does seem like the massive amount of fraud and unethical behavior has increased. You couldn’t cover up an Enron or all the major banks/Wall Street firms going under even in th 50′s.
So, the question is how do we stop it? It seems extremely difficult considering the major decision makers are all in on it. Take the recent Toyota mechanical problem. Hardly anyone seems to know that Toyota knew about this years ago and hired a lobbying firm to lobby the government agency to push it under the rug. They were successful until a rash of accidents happened because of the problem. Of course, that former government employ that helped them sweep it under the rug is now a Toyota employee…hmmm.
February 19th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I just read both articles. Interesting.
I think it has something to do with people skill. And people skill is a mystery. Why is A is more popular than B? Often I just don’t see reasonable explanation after reading all the critics.
When Angelina Jolie snatched Brad Pitt, few blamed her as home wrecker. Why? The only reason I can see is she is more likable than Jennifer Aniston.
Mike Tyson’s case? I don’t think people particularly like him, but this misbehaviors are so ridiculous it serves as entertainment. Kinda of. So is Bush.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
There are a couple elements that play into this topic, all of which I have to address regularly because they have to do with choices. It really comes down to not seeing the long-term, big picture, though. In our society, we are rewarded for making bad choices immediately. It started several years ago. Want to be famous? Cut of someone’s penis or have an affair with a minor. The last governor of Illinois was ousted; hey, put him on a reality show and give him a book deal. Charlie Sheen gets away with a lot. Okay, but look at the long-term, big pictures. If you cut-off a guy’s penis, who are you going to get stuck sleeping with in the future? Go to jail if you sleep with a minor. The former governor of Illinois will be bankrupt from his legal fees and most likely serve time. Compare that to Obama–an Illinois politician as well–who has sold many, many more books and doesn’t have to throw any money at legal fees. Oh yeah, he is also President. Does Charlie Sheen sound happy to you? Can he get any role he wants–does have have that kind of clout? Now compare him to Will Smith, who has lots of power in Hollywood, a clean image, and makes more money. Could Charlie Sheen have been another Will Smith if he didn’t have all the antics and distractions? Most likely. When you think of boxing, do you think Tyson or Ali? Will Tyson make the Hall of Fame? T.O., who is now stuck with the Bills? When you think great receivers, do you think T.O. or Rice?
An immediately gratifying choice is often not a good one because of the long-term ramifications, depending on your own priorities. Part of the reason Tiger gets so much more heat is because he cares. If he didn’t care he’d be less vulnerable. His biggest mistake was “going into hiding.” That just gave the media and critics more ammunition. He keeps coming up because people flock to it. And that’s the bottom-line: It isn’t the media who rewards people for bad choices; it’s us, the public. We do it. If we simply stopped watching or buying the magazines or commenting on the Internet, the stories would be replaced with important ones that actually impact our lives and celebrities would behave differently. Incidentally, notice how anyone rarely cites the women Tiger slept w/as baring responsibility. They knew he was married but get little heat. (I think the public is actually tired of the junk put on the news, as demonstrated recently by the Leno Show. The show actually did better than anticipated. The problem was affiliates lost viewership with it leading into their news. This indicates people didn’t watch their news because they liked it; they simply just watched whatever station the TV was on for the news. What would happen if they simply revamped their news instead of relying on someone else for viewership? It is always a bad choice to rely on others’ choices or to try to control their choices instead of controlling things by simply making better choices. Tyson is a good example. He makes a bad choice to rape someone, probably under the notion that someone else would make the right choices to get him off if needed. He relied on someone else’s decision-making instead of his own.)
February 20th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Someone gave a lengthy (the good kind of lengthy) reply to this post via email, and I told her that I appreciated her comments as well as all the comments from everyone else. Every now and then I’ll post about something I don’t know much about, and enjoy seeing what insights other people can offer.
I guess there are many factors involved. To get away with something, it’s helpful to bury it on a busy news day, have a bad boy image, be likeable, be a money maker, have the right friends, have political power, etc.
To Ian’s point about the big picture, yes, bad choices can pay off in the short run and backfire in the long run. But sometimes they don’t backfire all that much. Yes, Charlie Sheen is somewhat lower on the A-list than Will Smith, but he’s still on the list, and currently the highest paid TV actor – not too shabby. Mike Tyson is making the Hall of Fame, isn’t he? And if not, does it really matter? Ali was certainly a much better guy, but if he was before your time, Tyson is probably who you think of when you think of boxing.
“Does Charlie Sheen sound happy to you?” I don’t know much about him, but I assume he’s not, and I think this is where these guys pay the steepest price. Because if you do enough bad things, even if you get away with them, you still have to figure out how to live with yourself, unless you’re so dead inside that it doesn’t matter.