It's time to stand up and say, "Fuck the media!!!"

July 11, 2007 12:02 PM

Imagine being the mayor of Los Angeles, and after months (years, really) of rumored infidelity with an unknown woman, you finally decide to go public with news that you and your wife are officially separating. So you might ask yourself, as mayor, "How can I spin this story so as to minimize the damage to my reputation?" And it seems a good start would be to allow only one television network to cover your press conference live - hopefully, a network that is sympathetic to your political causes, and has a strong voice that will speak to your voting base as favorably as possible. So all was good in mid-June, when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa asked Telemundo to exclusively air the somewhat disastrous, but fairly well-contained, announcement of separation - which included a request for privacy, and a plea to respect the line that separates personal from political life. And that's when the proverbial shit hits the fan. A month later, Villaraigosa admits that the woman that anchors the 6 o'clock news on Telemundo - and announced the break-up to a national audience - is the woman he's being cheating with. Fox News also reports, and in keeping up with tradition, fucks up the pronunciation of his last name.
posted by phaedon (57 comments total)

Wow, that's chutzpah.
Not that I'm reading the link, or anything. I'll take on faith any post that's that fucking long.
posted by OmieWise at 12:08 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Veronica Corningstone and I had sex and now we are in love!
posted by psmealey at 12:10 PM on July 11, 2007 [4 favorites]

Could someone summarize the links in this post for me?
posted by shmegegge at 12:12 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Also I was wondering if it's time for me to do anything.
posted by shmegegge at 12:12 PM on July 11, 2007

Man, and I just got home from a day of teaching the correct usage of the English Present Perfect ...
posted by moonbiter at 12:13 PM on July 11, 2007

What a maroon.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:15 PM on July 11, 2007

Villaraigosa is the dictionary definition of chutzpah. It'll be interesting to see if he ever collapses under the weight of his own hubris, but it hasn't happened yet.
posted by blucevalo at 12:15 PM on July 11, 2007

How is FOX even relevant to this story?
posted by caddis at 12:15 PM on July 11, 2007

She's pretty cute though.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:17 PM on July 11, 2007

How is FOX even relevant to this story?

You decide.

[/tongue in cheek]
posted by phaedon at 12:17 PM on July 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Having your girlfriend anchor the news report on your divorce isn't chutzpah.

Having your wife announce the news report on your divorce... now that's chutzpah!
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:18 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's time to stand up and say, "Fuck the media!!!"

That's what impresses me so much with Villaraigosa, he's a man of action, not just words!
posted by malocchio at 12:20 PM on July 11, 2007 [7 favorites]

Having your wife announce the news report on your divorce... now that's chutzpah!

Go go Guiliani!
posted by thecaddy at 12:21 PM on July 11, 2007

Here's a recent 11-page article on the mayor - complete with trademark toothy grin and provincial Californian politics - from the New Yorker.

Not like you were busy at work or anything.
posted by mdonley at 12:21 PM on July 11, 2007

“Could someone summarize the links in this post for me?”

Well, the first one is gossip underneath a facade of political reporting, with a moderate dose of subtextual racism throughout. The second is Fox News and I only watched it long enough to hear the mispronunciation. The LA media's "correct" pronunciation of his name doesn't sound so great to this native New Mexican's anglophone's ears, either, but Albuquerque's media has been getting worse in the last twenty years, too, as the city has become more transplanted white. Nevertheless, Fox News completely anglicized it—which I suspect they probably do intentionally.

This isn't a good post. The topic is interesting, though awfully newsfiltery, and it might have been made acceptable with some links with much more substance.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:22 PM on July 11, 2007

"And in other news, I'm having sex with the mayor of Los Angeles. Early reports indicate that he is going to leave his wife for me. We'll have more updates as they come in. Back to you Tom."
posted by quin at 12:23 PM on July 11, 2007 [13 favorites]

Is there a video of the reporter actually giving the news? She looked away from the camera as she did it?

If he wanted the media to leave him alone, he shouldn't have announced the affair in such a remarkable way, because you know, people are going to want to remark on it.

That said, L.A doesn't seem like the kind of place where people really care who their mayors are fucking.
posted by delmoi at 12:26 PM on July 11, 2007

Meow.
posted by chunking express at 12:31 PM on July 11, 2007

Whatever man, I'm fucking the fat dude from Sabado Gigante.
posted by Mister_A at 12:32 PM on July 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Here is the toilet brush video.
posted by delmoi at 12:43 PM on July 11, 2007

Fox News also reports, and in keeping up with tradition, fucks up the pronunciation of his last name.

If he wants people to pronounce his last name correctly, maybe he should get an American last name. This is the United States, we speak American here. Leave it or love it. [/fox news]
posted by drezdn at 12:48 PM on July 11, 2007

Fox News completely anglicized it

That's understating it. Anglicizing it would make it /vilərə'gosə/; the woman who introduced the segment said /viləgə'rosə/, switching the g and r. I think "mangled" would be a better verb. It's as if they pronounced Giuliani "goony-alley."

And yeah, this is a sleazy story that shouldn't concern the public nearly as much as it will, but come on, we all love this shit.
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on July 11, 2007

Could someone summarize the links in this post for me?

Somebody fucks somebody.
Fox is a fuck up.
posted by phoque at 1:11 PM on July 11, 2007

The LA media's "correct" pronunciation of his name doesn't sound so great to this native New Mexican's anglophone's ears, either, but Albuquerque's media has been getting worse in the last twenty years, too, as the city has become more transplanted white. Nevertheless, Fox News completely anglicized it—which I suspect they probably do intentionally.


[nitpick] the Fox News anchor didn't anglicize it, she actually mispronounced the name as something like "Vila-garosa."[/nitpick]

But as long as we're speaking to an American audience, I see nothing wrong with (get ready for it!) [vɪləɹaɪˈɡoʊsʌ].

Anyway, yeah. That is some telenovela-type craziness.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 1:19 PM on July 11, 2007

ah! Beaten to my nitpick! Well played, languagehat.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 1:20 PM on July 11, 2007

Pretend you're the CEO of a major, major corporation. You need to add an executive to your staff, someone to oversee a massive budget and lots of important projects. He/She will be one of many public faces for your corporation, especially so in his/her particular area of expertise.

There are a handful of interested, qualified candidates. One of the qualified candidates happens to have served as the mayor of a major American city. However, while he/she was mayor, he/she was involved in a controversy involving an adulterous affair and related accusations of impropriety with the media. While it didn't precisely harm his/her governance of the city, it is reasonable to say the entire situation was at least a distraction from his/her duties as mayor.

Would you hire this person?

Remember, hundreds of millions of dollars and the day-to-day livelihood of thousands and thousands of people hang on this person's performance (because if he sucks, there will be layoffs). Remember also that we stipulate that there are other qualified candidates for the job that would reasonably be expected to perform at the same level of competence.

If not ... or if you have any hesitation ... why would you vote for this person?

Why do we seem to give our leaders a free pass on their personal behavior when it a) affects their performance (at the very least, is a distraction) and b) you wouldn't hire (or at least, you'd hesitate to hire) this person for a ordinary job?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:22 PM on July 11, 2007

Sometimes people really fuck.

This is, of course, news on the internets.
posted by srboisvert at 1:29 PM on July 11, 2007

Why do we seem to give our leaders a free pass on their personal behavior

Usually because a majority of voters perceive them to be the most qualified of the available candidates.
posted by eddydamascene at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2007

Why do we seem to give our leaders a free pass on their personal behavior[...]

I hardly think having all this go down with the attention of millions of people laughing/judging/talking/arguing/etc. about it is a free pass. I also think that people do judge public figures' personal behavior all the time, it's just that you disagree with the judgment. He had an affair, and is leaving his wife as a result--he fell in love with someone else. In what way is this an extraordinary, unusual thing to do? Immoral, yes, but this happens every day, it even happens to good, compassionate people who don't intend to hurt those who've invested their trust in them.

The business analogy is also extremely flawed--the city of L.A. doesn't have to competitively market public services to convince people to buy them, so the personal image of any "executive" is far less influential on whether or not people will "buy" their "products". I'll drive on the roads no matter what asshole is in office, and I'm sure you will too. Government and business are profoundly dissimilar in some important ways, and I grow weary of the deleterious effects of that analogy.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:56 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yes I would hire the person and in no way let the affair distract me from choosing the best candidate. Anyone who held this against the person I'd consider at the very least petty, but more likely bigoted. Were I on the board of directors and the CEO did not hire the person based on an affair, I'd be looking to rid myself of the CEO.
posted by kigpig at 2:06 PM on July 11, 2007

Yes I would hire the person and in no way let the affair distract me from choosing the best candidate.

Hard to imagine how someone so foolhardy could be the "best" candidate for an important job.
posted by JeffL at 2:15 PM on July 11, 2007

I would only care if he were one of those hideous "Family values" kinds of pols - you know the kind I mean (David Vitter, anyone?). He isn't, so I don't.
posted by rtha at 2:32 PM on July 11, 2007

Hard to imagine how someone so foolhardy could be the "best" candidate for an important job.

Are you referring to the marriage or the infidelity?
posted by srboisvert at 2:54 PM on July 11, 2007

Take a breath, phaedon. :)
posted by The Deej at 3:01 PM on July 11, 2007

Why do we seem to give our leaders a free pass on their personal behavior

Because it has nothing to do with the policy that affects our lives.

Would you hire this person?

Why not? Who he fucks off the clock is none of my concern.
posted by delmoi at 3:02 PM on July 11, 2007

Speaking as an Angeleno, I really could care less who Tony's banging. I'm sorry his marriage didn't work out, that must be a drag for both him and his wife, I hope they manage to work out an amicable separation.

Meanwhile, as long as he's doing a good job running the city (which as far as I can tell he's doing so far) and isn't doing anything criminal (which remains to be seen, as with all politicians), then I can disregard his personal life.

"I would only care if he were one of those hideous "Family values" kinds of pols"

Yep, precisely.

And yeah, the Telemundo anchorwoman is darn cute.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:03 PM on July 11, 2007

Because it has nothing to do with the policy that affects our lives.

I stipulated in my hypothetical that it's at least a distraction, which I think is reasonable to presume. Even if no crime is committed, he is, after all, now going to have to spend time answering questions about improprieties with the media during his normal workday. That's a distraction from his policy-making endeavors.

But I'm not arguing either point ... really just curious why we seem to think it's OK to have leaders that seem to often get themselves into weird, sticky situations when their 24-7 leadership skills are why we elected them in the first place.

You might say, lot's of people screw around, no big deal. But I submit that what's at issue here is the scale of the stage upon which the screwing around takes place. Whether I'm banging my neighbor's wife isn't a concern. I'm not trying to, say, reorganize the city's entire school system while I'm doing it. But there's a curious aspect of lassiez-faire among the general community when something like this happens.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:12 PM on July 11, 2007

I look at the fact that our mayor is banging a member of the media whose job description one would imagine includes reporting the facts objectively, as a form of political incest that rises above just sleeping around.

Of course, I don't believe anyone actually operates on this idealistic level, but what's wrong with letting someone hang out to dry? Not to mention potentially embarrassing personal behavior should be avoided by political officials because it will get covered by the media if they find out about it, and there is no doubt that such facts can be used against him, both behind closed doors and out in the open.
posted by phaedon at 3:15 PM on July 11, 2007

I think I see where you are coming from CPB. That a politician does something unethical isn't really the thrust of the problem. People not in the public eye do unethical and immoral things all the time. The problem is that the scandal and the efforts to spin it to something else, inevitably drain resources and time that should be spent doing what we elected them for.
posted by quin at 3:19 PM on July 11, 2007

The problem is that the scandal and the efforts to spin it to something else, inevitably drain resources and time that should be spent doing what we elected them for.

Exactly. A better encapsulation than I mustered.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:29 PM on July 11, 2007

This isn't a good post.

Lies. This is what the internet is for! Scandal, scandal, scandal. I love it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:34 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

...

wow.

Re: the above allegations of chutzpah, I don't think it's necessarily that the mayor that has it. Think of what it must have been like to be Mirthala Salinas! (the anchor.)

Hell, I find her attractive just for that.
posted by blacklite at 3:46 PM on July 11, 2007

Affairs have cost a number of high-profile CEOs their jobs in recent years, and many, perhaps even most, public company boards would refuse to hire as CEO someone with an ugly divorce in his recent pedigree.

I think that the standard for politicians is much lower -- the public appears more willing to let cheating husbands slide corporate America.

The distinction, I think, lies in the notion of loyalty. These days, loyalty to one's employer is a pretty thin thing, and a board is probably within its rights to think someone who'd cheat on his wife would turn on his shareholders rather easily. By contrast, Villaraigosa's pretty unlikely to throw in his lot with Pasadena regardless of his attitude towards his wedding vows.
posted by MattD at 4:15 PM on July 11, 2007

"really just curious why we seem to think it's OK to have leaders that seem to often get themselves into weird, sticky situations"

Same reason it's okay to have friends, associates, family members, cow-orkers, bosses, and other people in our lives who get into weird, sticky situations. They're people. People are not perfect. They make mistakes, but also often do lots of good and effective things. We can't hold anyone to a standard of perfection.

"when their 24-7 leadership skills are why we elected them in the first place."

Seriously? You expect our leaders to be spot on 24-7? Nobody can do that. City mayors have office hours like everyone else. I don't think anyone can reasonably expect any person to be 100% on mission 24 hours a day. Apart from emergency situations, our civic leaders do and should have down time and personal time just like everyone else. And as said above, if he's not on the clock, it shouldn't matter.

Plus, marital infidelity is not some rare aberrant event. It happens constantly, apparently to a large proportion of married folks (and similar infidelity between unmarried lovers), with a regularity that to me seems mundane and monotonous.

Do you really think this is any more of a distraction than, say, a family member getting seriously ill? We all deal with our jobs and lives and the various distractions and event in them.

"Whether I'm banging my neighbor's wife isn't a concern. I'm not trying to, say, reorganize the city's entire school system while I'm doing it."

But if that was happening, you'd also be handling all the other stuff in your life as well, your job, your family, your bills, your various activities. It's not a given that having that affair would negatively affect your ability to do everything else - in some cases it might actually make you more effective at them, such as if your marriage makes you miserable, for instance. (Not that I'm advocating adultery, to be sure.)

IMO, someone like Mr. Villaraigosa is probably much better able to handle such "distractions" in context of his work than most people; he strikes me as a capable person with excellent time-management skills.

How about we give him the dignity of handling his personal problems in his own personal way? It often boggles me that we expect such a high level of performance from these folks, far higher than we'd expect from anyone else...
posted by zoogleplex at 4:17 PM on July 11, 2007

Seriously? You expect our leaders to be spot on 24-7? Nobody can do that. ... And as said above, if he's not on the clock, it shouldn't matter.

When you're the mayor of a city like L.A., there's no such thing as being "off the clock." You're the mayor when you're in the office, you're the mayor when you're at McDonalds. If there's a significant crisis in the middle of the night, believe me, someone wakes the mayor up.

Do you really think this is any more of a distraction than, say, a family member getting seriously ill?

You don't decide to make your family member ill. You do decide to bang the hot TV chick. Therein lies the difference.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:27 PM on July 11, 2007

The problem is that the scandal and the efforts to spin it to something else, inevitably drain resources and time that should be spent doing what we elected them for.

Which is a good reason to be disgusted with people who make such things their voting concern. It drains resources and time because people care about it. If they didn't it would be his private affair.

If a mayor of a city conceived a child, it would drain resources and time because it would create a buzz. If they were able to perform their job functions during this period would you hold it against them?

What if they were outed as being gay...it clearly would distract from the issues due to the media and public's obsession. Would you hold this against them?

This is different because you find infidelity innately immoral? (I agree with those who pointed out that were he a moral hypocrite it would be reason to vote against him...which decent people do. Also were the action committed reasonable to suggest it would bring into question his political performance...but the hypothetical game ruled that out).
posted by kigpig at 4:35 PM on July 11, 2007

I look at the fact that our mayor is banging a member of the media whose job description one would imagine includes reporting the facts objectively, as a form of political incest that rises above just sleeping around.

I definitely think that's the more salient issue. She apparently made some attempts to pull away from covering him after the affair started, but it's sort of icky to realize that the fawning coverage she consistently gave him before that was really a very public kind of courtship/foreplay.

It's typical of one of several disgusting elements of our contemporary mass media: inside access traded for favorable coverage. In this case, lusty sparks flew.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:04 PM on July 11, 2007

If a mayor of a city conceived a child

What if they were outed as being gay

Again, in both of these analogies, it is reasonable to argue that they infer possible situations where the mayor does not choose for them to occur (pregnancies can happen when you're not trying, and you don't choose to be gay).

We're talking about an adult that woke up one morning and said, "Know what? Despite the fact that my every move is documented by paparazzi, an army of assistants and political enemies (not to mention my own wife), I'm going to go bang that hot TV chick and try to keep it secret."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:11 PM on July 11, 2007

Again, in both of these analogies, it is reasonable to argue that they infer possible situations where the mayor does not choose for them to occur (pregnancies can happen when you're not trying, and you don't choose to be gay).

You seem to have missed the connection in the choices but perhaps I shouldn't have been subtle since that's not always fair...both cases require one to 'choose' to have sex, though admittedly I should have phrased the gay one a bit different for supposedly the gay affair could have happened while not in office.

Hence they are really quite similar to having an affair where someone also 'chooses' to have sex.

This being said it parallels the hypothetical well but not the real situation where as others have mentioned, the act could be perceived as influencing the media. Though really...quite a few have said she's hot...I can't imagine he was the one who sold the perspective of 'make for me in the papers and I'll have sex with you'...so it probably is kind of moot here.
posted by kigpig at 5:43 PM on July 11, 2007

Leave it to a Democrat to do a sex scandal up right, yea baby! Makes me nostalgic for the Clinton years. sniff
posted by jonp72 at 6:01 PM on July 11, 2007

The mayor of my own fair city recently went through something similar. There was a great kerfluffle about it for a few days, and then everyone moved on.

While I'm sure being mayor of a big city is a big job, it's not like everything's going to come to a screeching halt if the mayor has to handle some extra questions at press conferences for a few days/weeks. L.A. loves its gossip, but the gossip's gotta be fresh and hot. And the only place it really appears to have broken nationally is Fox and Limbaugh. The L.A. press will find something new and yummy in a heartbeat, and in two weeks most people won't even remember this happening.
posted by rtha at 6:12 PM on July 11, 2007

Fox News also reports, and in keeping up with tradition, fucks up the pronunciation of his last name.

Hopefully "Villarsalinas" will be easier to pronounce.
posted by the_bone at 6:22 PM on July 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Cool Papa Bell writes "You don't decide to make your family member ill. You do decide to bang the hot TV chick. Therein lies the difference."

Yeah, but most other countries don't make a big deal out of it. It's sort of assumed that many politicians are having affairs. The tabloids report on it, but it's just tabloid news. We practically crucify politicians for this. Or, we used to anyway. Given recent history and reactions, the attitude may be changing.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:26 PM on July 11, 2007

We choose our leaders based on their charm, confidence and interpersonal abilities.

In other contexts, those traits are awfully damn sexy.

Men are not by nature monogamous.

Most politicians are men.

And when the statistically inevitable occurs, when a charming, confident, suave politician doesn't conform to the mainstream monogamous norm, we (US-ians) are

SHOCKED!! FUCKING SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!!!

that this could actually take place.
posted by jason's_planet at 7:30 PM on July 11, 2007

I stipulated in my hypothetical that it's at least a distraction, which I think is reasonable to presume.

Distraction? Who cares if someone is 'distracted' It's stupid to expect someone to dedicate 24 hours of the day to a job, they should be allowed to live a life as well. Would you fire someone because their mom got cancer?

The demand that politicians not be distracted by anything is pretty silly. And lots of people do choose to have children, which would be far more 'distracting'
posted by delmoi at 7:00 AM on July 12, 2007

delmoi, I know you like to post quickly and furiously, but, jesus, spend a bit of time thinking before you disagree.

The demand isn't that politician's not be distracted, it's that they not be distracted by things which have to do with their jobs, but are not their jobs. No politician really risks losing their job because mom has cancer, but they all risk losing their jobs for extra-marital affairs. They have to spend political time and resources spinning the situation. They have to spend money and time figuring out how to get out from under the scandal. The scandal is, by definition, something that they need to manage. Their job is to manage what they were elected to manage, not to add political considerations onto their agenda that they wouldn't otherwise have.
posted by OmieWise at 7:08 AM on July 12, 2007

I really don't get the sense that Villaraigosa is very distracted by this. After the initial shock wore off (and it's been a couple of weeks now), the local media stopped paying much attention to it. After all, it really just symbolizes the tradtionally fawning relationship that the media has with the L.A. mayorship.

I would imagine that Salinas will be much more damaged by the affair. For some reason, we still maintain the illusion that the media is the impartial watchdog that it should be. But Los Angeles has been a one newspaper town ever since the Harold Examiner took on Tom Bradley and subsequently folded. The L.A. Times' loyalty to the mayor rather than the citizenry was well evident during that period, yet it emerged as the only daily english-speaking newspaper. The local TV news is even worse; written by spineless editors and reported by vapid anchors, even the slightest expectation of rain is often the headline story.

There are goood reasons we don't want the media in bed with our politicians, figuratively or literally. Politicians will always want to use the media to their advantage, and those in the media need to be aware of that, and keep their behavior above suspicion. I really don't care what people do with their private lives or about sex scandals in general, but this is so blatant a violation of the trust that the public places in the news media that I won't be too upset when Salinas is reporting the weather in Bakersfield.

And for these same reasons, I think Villaraigosa suffered an inexcusable lapse in discretion. This may not hurt him too much locally (and I really don't think it will, he's a popular figure in L.A.), but it could certainly dampen his future ambitions, as this will be his first impression on many people outside the region.

(If there are any spanish-reading Angelinos lurking out there, I'd love to hear how La Opinion is dealing with this!)
posted by malocchio at 8:53 AM on July 12, 2007