Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Great Events from History: Modern Scandals, Second Edition

Introduction

by Thomas Tandy Lewis

The entries in this three-volume reference set are devoted to scandalous events that have occurred since the beginning of the twentieth century. Because the work is published primarily for an American audience, most of the events covered have taken place in the United States. Deciding which events to include were based on its significant impact on society, and its relation to an important historical development or movement.

Concept of Scandal

The word “scandal” is defined in the American Heritage of the English Language (2018) as follows:

  1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society: a drug scandal that forced the mayor’s resignation;

  2. Aperson, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage: a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal;

  3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace;

  4. Talk that is damaging to one’s character; malicious gossip.

An event is often considered to be scandalous when one or more respectable persons do something that is harmful to other people or to the larger society. But not all harmful events are classified as scandals. A person with a long criminal record committing a crime is usually not classified as a scandal, because we expect such a person to continue to commit crimes.

Scandals often involve dishonesty and greed in regard to money and finances. If a criminal has robbed five banks, a sixth bank robbery would not be classified as a scandal. But, the fraudulent accounting methods and other abuses discovered at the Enron Company in 2001 was one of the greatest scandals of the period. Enron, a company that appeared to be both prosperous and honest, caused employees and investors to lose investments and retirement savings.

When a serial murderer continues to commit murder, we would probably not consider it a scandal. However, murders committed by persons who are known for their good reputations are scandalous. For example, in 2005, Dennis Rader was arrested for murdering ten people. For thirty years prior, he was considered an upright citizen, a loving father, devoted husband, church leader, and responsible public employee. The people of his hometown of Wichita, Kansas were justifiably shocked to learn that he had terrorized the city for so many years—a scandal.

Abuses by political leaders and public officials are often considered scandalous because we expect our leaders and officials to uphold the laws and not take advantage of their positions for private gain. It’s also considered scandalous for military leaders to violate an accepted rule of warfare, but not for armies to fight and kill large numbers of people. For example, between 2002 and 2008, the CIA and the U.S. military utilized “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding, that appeared to resemble torture as defined by the 1994 U.N. Convention. Thus, the practice has commonly been called a scandal.

Whether or not an event is considered to be a scandal often also depends on the culture and beliefs of society at the time. For example, the entry in Volume 1 about the dinner that Booker T.Washington had in the White House with President Theodore Roosevelt and his family in 1901 was viewed as a great scandal at the time by people of the South, considering Jim Crow laws of the time. Today, however, we consider it scandalous that this event was viewed as a scandal.

Nature of the Event

Don Hewitt (1922-2009), producer of the television program 60 Minutes, has revealed why he believes the program has been so successful for such a long period of time. In Tell Me a Story: Fifty Years and 60 Minutes in Television (2001), he writes: “The formula is simple, and it’s reduced to four words every kid in the world knows: Tell me a story. It’s that easy.” Certainly, Hewitt is correct about the appeal of stories—in novels, film, newspaper articles, and history. But it is not always easy to tell a true story with factual accuracy in a way that is understandable and compelling. The writers of these volumes have attempted to accomplish just that, and they use the word “event” to refer to both long-term and short-term events. Some articles in Modern Scandals discuss a series of events. For example, the numerous killings of blacks by police officers in the last twenty years generated a social movement known as “Black Lives Matter.” In this case, one relatively long article is devoted to a large number of events in which African Americans were killed by the police.

Components of Events

A good story should answer six questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? In attempting to answer these questions, journalists and historians make inferences and suggest interpretations (often called “spin”). Some historians think it more helpful to think in terms of the five C’s: Context; Complexity; Causation; Contingency; and Change.

Regardless of the questions that guide them, historians and journalists who are competent and honest assume their goal is to tell the truth. Because every human has a point-of-view (i.e., biases), there is the tendency to tell a story to correspond to your point of view. This does not necessarily involve blatant falsehood, but is often a matter of emphasizing particular details and omitting others, including choosing certain words over others. For instance, persons committed to pro-choice use terms such as “reproductive freedom,” versus the phrase “killing of unborn babies” which would most likely be used by those committed to pro-life.

While it is true that no one can be absolutely and completely objective in reporting an event, this is the goal of journalists and historians who have contributed to this work.

Truth and Falsehoods in the Study of Events

The German historian Leopold von Ranke wrote that his goal was to write about the past “as it actually happened” (wie es eigentlich gewesen). It is not possible, of course to give every detail about an event in the past, and selection and interpretation are inevitable. When telling about what happened in an event, it is important to recognize the distinction between a “fact” and an “interpretation”—even though the distinction between the two is not always easy to make. Usually factual statements are either true or false. For example, if a person were to say that Abraham Lincoln was the president who ordered the Watergate crime of 1972, every reasonably informed person would know immediately that is not true. Sometimes however, it is not possible to know with certainty whether alleged facts are true or not. For instance, we do not know for certain if all of the alleged charges of sexual abuses leveled against President Bill Clinton are valid. Further, there is disagreement concerning whether Clinton’s false statement under oath was serious enough to merit impeachment and removal from office—which constitutes a question of historical interpretation. There are not “alternative facts,” but there are “alternative interpretations.”

In deciding whether a particular statement is true, jurisprudence provides three standards of proof: (1) “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” (2) “preponderance of evidence,” and (3) the intermediate standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” Aprosecutor, to prevail in a criminal trial, must show that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the accused person did not commit the crime (sometimes called the 95% rule). In a civil suit, a plaintiff will prevail if he or she presents enough evidence for the jury to conclude that there is a greater than a 50% probability that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage. The intermediate standard (75% probability) is used in a few special situations.

Informed journalists and historians might question whether or not the events in these volumes are legitimate scandals. Whatever one decides, a judgment has to be based on the preponderance of evidence standard. If standard sources of news—The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Review, The New Republic—agree on the basic facts about what took place during a specific event, one can assume beyond a reasonable doubt that these are truthful statements about what really happened. On the other hand, individual observers will often interpret the facts from differing perspectives—with different preconceptions. Acritical reader, therefore, can use her or his own judgment in deciding which interpretation appears to be the most persuasive and, for these volumes, the most scandalous.

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Introduction." Great Events from History: Modern Scandals, Second Edition, edited by Thomas Tandy Lewis, Salem Press, 2018. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=GEScandal_0003.
APA 7th
Lewis, T. T. (2018). Introduction. In T. T. Lewis (Ed.), Great Events from History: Modern Scandals, Second Edition. Salem Press.
CMOS 17th
Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Introduction." Edited by Thomas Tandy Lewis. Great Events from History: Modern Scandals, Second Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2018. Accessed June 21, 2025. online.salempress.com.