Regarding Anna Marie Smith's article, I have to say that I'm not exactly sure I agree that mainstream media reporting of political sex scandals is a neoliberal tactic designed purely for profit and viewership/readership. While it is true that such scandals do grab our attention, I see media reporting of these sex scandals more as a kind of paternalistic response that reflects more of who we are then of some outside entity with an ulterior motive with a price tag attached. Though we often see the mainstream media as Big Brother personified, I don't think its impact on the American psyche is purely devoted to profit at the expense of its stated purpose to report and enlighten.

Americans hold a very hypocritical, paradoxical view of sex in general, and we have a tendency to be Puritanical and highly judgmental when elected representatives engage in extramarital affairs, regardless of their political stripes. If we've cheated or have been cheated on, particularly in the context of marriage or a long-term partnership, you'd think we'd be a bit more sympathetic, but quite often we're not. So it's a tempting response to assign sinister motives wrought of shadowy figures and smoke filled rooms to such matters, but while sometimes things are what they seem to be, sometimes they are not. As someone with Marxist sensibilities himself, it's very easy to see the world through one lens, that of the powerful elite subjugating the masses through coercion. Though I often ascribe to such a view myself, I think in this instance a much more nuanced perspective provides a much greater, richer understanding. To wit, it's not as easy as the media exploiting our indignation. It might do us well to look beyond one set paradigm by which to build our arguments.