Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.

The assertion that it is no longer possible for the society to consider any living man or woman because the intense media scrutiny nearly always serve to diminish their reputation is agreeable for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of the media to find ways to demean public figures, heroes or otherwise. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called heroes have vindicated themselves and restored their reputation diminished by the media, these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered; the reputation of any public figure, hero or otherwise, is forever tarnished.

The chief reason to support the claim and the reason thereof, has to do with forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media largely consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their share-holders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers and listeners, find information about the misfortunes or misdeeds of others, especially public figures, far more compelling than their accomplishments and virtues. In short, we love a good scandal. One needs to look no further than newsstand, local television news broadcast or talk-show, to find ample evidence that this is the case. The media, thus to maximize profits, give people what they demand: intense scrutiny of heroic public figures that serves to destroy their reputation.

A second reason to agree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the collective minds of people, that their hero is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. A presumption that is understandable. Any demographic study would show that the majority of people relying on mainstream media for information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills or objectivity to see beyond what media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgement of public figures – heroic or otherwise.

The third reason to support the assertion has to do with the longer-term fallout of intense media scrutiny and presumption as discussed. Once the reputation of a person is tarnished as a result of media scrutiny, it is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases where public figures whose reputation had been tarnished by the media were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet these are exceptional cases; besides, damage award is no indication that public has expunged from their collective mind the perception that the fallen hero is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.

In conclusion, the statement and the underlying reason are fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by earning profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals may become their cynosure. Moreover, an opportunity for vindication is a little consolation in a society which seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching the heroes being knocked off their pedestals.