From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thoughts on Wikipedia articles on scandals 1.1 Is it a scandal? 1.2 What type of scandal is it? 1.3 Anatomy of scandals 1.4 Top section 1.5 The accusation 1.6 The defense 1.7 Further details of accusation or cited suspicion 1.8 The ramifications of the scandal 1.9 Opinions of those affected by the scandal 1.10 Public opinion on the scandal 1.11 Aftermath

[edit] Thoughts on Wikipedia articles on scandals

[edit] Is it a scandal?

Before deciding whether to call something a scandal, decide whether there is a broad consensus that the matter is, in fact, a scandal. Scandals are often accompanied by resignations from a job or office and sometimes arrests or at least official investigations. If no crime has been committed, a scandal may still be widely accepted as such, and the matter is often referred to some sort of investigative office or committee.

When some say scandal and others doubt it or disagree with that description, the matter might be called an affair. When there is no allegation of wrongdoing, or if such allegations are believed by few or seem to be simply debating tactics or are not central to a matter being debated, the word controversy might be a better description. Issue -- where a matter is debated by people with more than one opinion, may be a better word in some cases. Problem is another descriptive word, if all sides seem to agree that the matter is a problem (for an "Issue" one side or more may disagree that a problem even exists). "Debate" is generally a more formal discussion of an issue and is generally limited to a particular forum: The debate over the Panama Canal Treaty took place most formally in the Senate, where a decision was made, and less formally in other forums. Decisions and particular forums seem to go together with debates, and absent them, debate may not be the best word to describe a public discussion.

[edit] What type of scandal is it?

• Crime or impropriety?
• The possible subject of a civil lawsuit?

Does the scandal involve (often more than one is involved):

• Sexual impropriety?
• Financial theft?
• Financial mismanagement or lack of proper care in guarding money or resources?
• Lies?
• Insults (a racial joke or insult, for instance)
• Putting someone in physical danger?
• Physically hurting someone?
• Non-performance of a duty (Official, professional or otherwise)

[edit] Anatomy of scandals

STAGE ONE:

• The matter is discovered by someone who doesn't like it.
• The matter comes to public light (rarely do all the essential facts come to light at this point).
• Initial reaction is shock, calls for action.
• Initial steps are taken -- or not taken. There is often debate at this point about whether some authority is over-reacting or under-reacting.
• The accused generally makes an initial defense at this point. Some may rally to defend the accused at this point.

STAGE ONE OR TWO:

• Outside experts may be consulted by the media and give their opinions on general issues or problems brought to light by the scandal and which may be illustrated by the scandal. This often broadens the nature of the scandal: in addition to the person or group accused of being the direct perpetrator, some authority may be accused of not performing duties that would have prevented the perpetrator from acting scandalously. It matters a great deal at this point how widespread the criticism of the authorities is. If there is no great outcry, authorities may not act on any perceived problems with the way they operate.

STAGE TWO:

• Additional facts about what the person, group or institution accused of being the direct perpetrator usually come to light (usually pertinent, important and often changing the perception of just what may have taken place, often making the matter seem more or less important).
• Additional facts may come out about the authorities and whether they did or did not properly perform duties which might have prevented the scandal from taking place.
• These additional facts may change the nature of the accusation, what the accusers and opponents say, what the defenders say, what the authorities say, what the public thinks and what observers say.
• Some may say enough rules were not in place that would have prevented the scandal.

STAGE THREE:

• Authorities make public authoritative information (an indictment is handed down, for instance; or a blue-ribbon commission makes public a report)
• The accused, others directly involved and third-parties react to this.
• The public reacts to this, or at least its opinions are asked.

STAGE FOUR: Action is taken (This often occurs simultaneously with Stage Three)

• The accused is exonerated or the accused is punished, or some combination of the two.
• If no action is taken, then public pressure is put on authorities to take action and they also may be accused of acting scandalously for not taking action.
• The accused, others directly involved and third-parties comment on this.
• The public reacts, or its opinions are asked. (perhaps it votes someone out of office, or doesn't)

STAGE FIVE: Aftermath

• No further action is taken or is expected to be taken (investigations are closed; someone in authority says the matter is resolved)
• The public at large accepts that the matter has been dealt with as much or as well as it ever will be.
• If additional facts come out that are widely acknowledged must be dealt with, move back to STAGE TWO, and the process restarts from there, but usually with "scandal fatigue" and much less interest from the public. The matter may not progress to further action or even investigation by authorities. New information is often claimed to be of little importance.

[edit] Top section

Must include (in very brief summary form, with details to follow in sections below):

• Who involved
• Essential accusation(s)
• Response from accused
• Who the accusers are
• Whether or not the accusation involves a crime under some law
• Cited statement on why the matter is important, what harm results from the allegations

[edit] The accusation

• Further details on what is alleged to have happened
• what the evidence is (in a separate section if appropriate)

[edit] The defense

• What the person or people accused say in response - this section usually should be very high in the story, right after description of accusation. The most general and abstract description of the defense should be in the top paragraph, with more specific defenses following. Defense should always be after initial description of accusation (or cited suspicion) and possibly after details of accusation or cited suspicion.

[edit] Further details of accusation or cited suspicion

• Especially if a vigorous defense is mounted of the accused or suspected person or institution, details of the accusation should be provided. Any defense offered should be provided close to where the details are given.

[edit] The ramifications of the scandal

• More information showing why this scandal is important may be put in a section.

[edit] Opinions of those affected by the scandal

• What do those directly and obviously affected by the scandal think about it?
• What do those less directly and less obviously affected think (this part should be shorter and less prominent than the above item)

[edit] Public opinion on the scandal

• Cite more than one public opinion poll
• Cite various commentators, giving a sampling of the range of opinion, with enough identification of the source of opinion so the person giving the opinion can be identified as someone possibly biased.

[edit] Aftermath

• What resulted -- or didn't result -- from the scandal? Specifically:
  • What happened to the people accused? (Any accused person mentioned in the article should be mentioned here)
  • What happened to the victims of the scandal, if there were victims?
  • Were any institutions hurt by the scandal? Cite sources.