Once upon a time, there was something beseeching about a public mea culpa. Once upon a time, if you found yourself soliciting sex in a toilet block, in bed with a prostitute or having fathered an illegitimate child, there was always a chance that the situation could be salvaged.
Your people would phone Barbara Walters’ people, would phone Oprah’s people, and you’d settle into armchair and tell your story.
You’d mention your depression. Your struggles with substance abuse. There’d be child abuse. Self-esteem issues. Your parents always said that you were nothing. You once saw a kitten hit by a car. You’ve been struggling with a mysterious illness.
The sin would be admitted to – yes you’re flawed, aren’t we all flawed? – and you’d cry. And if you’ve got a long-suffering significant other, they’d be propped next to you squeezing your hand at well-timed intervals.
You hurt people, you’re devastated that you did that. You’re seeking treatment, you want to take some time away from the public eye now. To recover, regroup, rebuild relationships and truly work out what it is you want from this life.
And once upon a time audiences bought it. We might not have ever completely forgotten your sin, but there was once a time when taking ownership of a wretched situation could be construed as adult, as responsible, as potentially even admirable for those drawn to the bad-boy-made-good narrative. And you’d be credited accordingly.
Not anymore, my friends, not anymore.
Spin and crisis management are ridiculously familiar to modern media audiences. Nowadays, no screen portrayal of politics exists without at least a couple of career-destroying scandals that get fixed through press conferences, tell-all interviews and tears.
And in every single one of these depictions, audiences are reminded of the all-too-quickly deployed tools of political manipulation. Because in a world where each of us has a phone that doubles as a camera, there’s only so long a scandal can be denied before the evidence surfaces and the witnesses start blabbing. Control needs to be regained and a public mea culpa has always been a key component.
That nowadays we can all see through this routine is at the crux of why any crap Lance spills to Oprah won’t help him. In the contemporary mediascape, he has chosen an anachronistic technique to try to fix a horrendous situation without conceding that it no longer functions as the silver bullet. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is, audiences are nowhere near as malleable as they once might have been and this whole soft interrogation thing is starting to look pretty dusty.
Of course, such arrogance about his intellect, about his powers of persuasion, is precisely why Armstrong finds himself in this pickle.
Had he just been a doper, and had it been 1991, then perhaps having a sit-down with Oprah may have done the trick. Alas it’s not 1991, we’re not in Kansas anymore, and he’s not just a doper; rather, he is the bloke who arrogantly Tweeted the photograph of himself reclining in front of his ill-gotten tour jerseys. I dare say we’re less likely to forgive this routine than all his dastardly juicing.
Lance started digging his grave every time he denied enhancing his performance. And he shovelled deeper every time he exhibited his trademark arrogance that made it seem outrageous that anyone would ever think to question his integrity.
Humans are predisposed to forgive. That, compounded with our yen to put athletes on pedestals for even the slightest achievement means a lot of us really want to stop hating him. But doing so is only possible when we’re given a reason to. When something – anything! – gets dangled in front of us to make him seem worthy of our forgiveness.
Rather than seeming like a nice guy, a humble guy, a likable guy, instead, Armstrong has been treating us all like idiots. Having a yarn with Oprah only perpetuates this.
We’re all 30 seconds away from typing “lance armstrong couch jersey” into the Google images search. That’s thirty seconds from a visual reminder that no public mea culpa is going to get him out of this one.
Russell Hamilton
Librarian
But Lauren, he's a celebrity, ordinary categories of morality don't apply. The important thing is ... will it be good TV?
Geoffrey Edwards
logged in via email @gmail.com
"..a lot of us really want to stop hating him."
Then do so.
The object of your hate rarely, if at all, has much of a role to play. Hate is your response.
Or is that above just a lie?
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"..a lot of us really want to stop hating him."
I've never met the guy, and certainly don't hate him. His industry is entertainment, where there is a lot of dishonesty - be it plastic surgery, voice dubbing, stunt doubles.
Taking a look at the Livestrong website, Armstrong is not telling people that they can cure themselves and is not selling scam therapies - he appears to be helping people navigate their lives and experience of cancer within the medical system.
Had his approach been to claim that he had cured his own cancer without assistance, this could be harmful. His claim that he won bike races without assistance, not so much.
michaelcollins
logged in via Twitter
Sorry but disagree, Lauren. Have you read this piece from Brendon O'Neill. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100197645/the-ritualistic-humiliation-of-lance-armstrong-is-far-more-repulsive-than-anything-armstrong-himself-did/
When Twitter was abuzz about the sponsors dropping him last year, one supposedly respected Australian Tweeter was using the hashtag, "#cancerisnotashield."
I maybe living in LALALand in continuing to respect Lance's achievements but when Twitter is abuzz with spite, it debases public conversation to new levels.
Mike Cowley
logged in via Facebook
Michael, Brendan O'Neill being against something usually endears it to me and this is only a partial exception - of course there are plenty of self-appointed moral guardians out there taking public pleasure in this situation, and I always find that distasteful.
But to go from there to defending Lance because you don't like the people against him (a speciality of O'Neill, professional whinging young fogey) is I feel a step too far.
Lance wasn't your average user of performance enhancement against…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Yep - if Mr ONeill is against something it's probably worth a look.
Can't disagree with anything you've said re Lance Armstrong - other than to question who actually contributed to Lance's fraudulent fortune. Not the fans - the taxpayer.
Given that Mr Armstrong has been subject to the largesse of the commercially sponsored pro-circuit for many years, it is Shimano, Cannondale and the like through to banks and "wealth advisers" that shell out the big money that builds and maintains professional teams often over 40 people... full time. All tax deductible as a legitimate marketing investment isn't it?
Except it is legitimate and it is not a good investment - it shouldn't be anyway. But strangely it is.
Mike Cowley
logged in via Facebook
Good point Peter, although the fans do "pay" in the sense that it's their purchasing behaviours the sponsors are seeking to alter...
I want to be clear on one thing though - I still enjoy watching cycling, particularly the TDF, I think Lance is incredibly talented and probably would have won many races if he (and everyone else) were not using performance-enhancing drugs (except the approved ones like caffeine of course), and I don't have a moral issue with the use of performance-enhancing drugs…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Yep... I suspect that's true for the overwhelming majority of those sporting folks who end up using some sort of chemical assistance. They are throwing away what they had for that extra 0.04 seconds, or that extra 15 watts of power through the pedals... they do it for shades of fractions of improvement. That's what makes it sad I guess.
And it is a huge industry. And it annoys me that the very rich and powerful men who control this industry just never knew... didn't pick it up... didn't feel inclined to look too closely.
Bit like Pakistani cricket. Or the Indian Commonwealth Games Graft Record.
I too like watching cycling - especially track ... can't understand the TdF or why anyone would be mad enough to even try it. No wonder they need drugs. Looks cute though from the air.
Chris Booker
Research scientist
Between this article and the other by Michael Polonsky today I was reminded of an opinion piece at the height of the scandal:
Lance Armstrong: A cheater? Five reasons why we don't care
Harvey Young
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/201210236357172286.html
I for one agree with him.
Amanda Murray
Mum
I think what irks me about this whole Armstrong issue, is the fact that for umpteen years he denied any wrong doing, he went to court and denied any wrong doing and made anyone who doubted his innocence appear to be amongst some kind of lynch mob.. Then lets sit on Oprahs couch and tell people that I am a big fat liar, is the expectation that magical Oprah is going to save his soul and provide absolution on behalf of everyone else.. If he is feeling any shame now, he has earnt it. But I doubt it is shame it more likely is embarrasment and a sense of being hard done by because people now know the truth.. He purchased fame with lies.. Why the truth now, what is he hoping to purchase now?
Pat Moore
gardener
Thanks Lauren, a very entertaining, witty & spot-on piece. Maybe it's a male/female attitude divide judging from two of the posts above...but traditionally Australians have had a certain skepticism/ intolerance for a certain USAmerican tendency towards BS, especially likely to be demonstrated by those persons native to the pre-Alaskan-acquisition BIGGEST state in the union. It's no doubt dated & highly unPC but in the olden days, there used to be a common rhyming comparison made by the then more…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
Both Lance Armstrong and Oprah would have to be the greatest frauds currently living.
Much adored by many women, and considered a feminist icon, Oprah runs her own magazine, which probably contains the greatest amount of brain-dead drivel ever written, with articles such as “Melt Fat With A Laser” and “Want A swimsuit That Takes Off 10 lbs” and “Meditate and Lose Weight”
But the highlight would have to be her recipe section, which would contain the most glutinous and fattening recipes ever developed, such as “Vanilla Pudding Cinnamon Rolls with Cream Cheese Frosting”
http://www.oprah.com/food/Vanilla-Pudding-Cinnamon-Rolls-Recipe-How-to-Make-Cinnamon-Rolls
So, one total fraud coming clean to another total fraud would be the most fitting thing for Lance Armstrong.
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
The link to a cake recipe isn't fraudulent. I don't see anything on the website itself that appears to be fraudulent.
I don't find Oprah entertaining, but she is prominent in the media - and, so what?
I doubt Lance will admit everything, there's too much at stake: http://www.policymic.com/articles/23409/what-lance-armstrong-won-t-tell-you-in-his-oprah-interview. But to compare his alleged criminal intent and subsequent denial with a prominent media presence would appear to be somewhat hysterical.
You have a habit of trivialising any article relating to media studies, and in particular, those authored by Lauren :https://theconversation.edu.au/the-big-and-booby-questions-of-reality-tv-11594#comment_106552. and make unsubstantiated claims about women's mental health :https://theconversation.edu.au/behavioural-consequences-of-chinese-social-engineering-11623.
Don't you have better things to do?
Mike Cowley
logged in via Facebook
Mitch, while I'm not in any way defending Dale's little obsessions with media studies, Lauren, or (I suspect) anyone who flagrantly has more than one X chromosome per person, Oprah has been responsible for promoting some fairly pernicious or at least dubious claims in the past - Jenny McCarthy and her claims about vaccines (the jennymccarthybodycount.com is up to 1032), almost anything Dr Oz promotes, The Secret and it's blame-the-victim mentality and many many more would probably have never been as popular without Oprah.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Oprah follows the well tried formula of portraying herself as being oppressed and depressed, and then stating she has found the answer, which is a makerover, new clothes, new cosmetics, new shoes, a new hair style, a new recipe , and of course a new diet.
She made a lot of money following that formula, and various other women and feminists have also, with their own women’s magazines and TV shows.
The modern woman has also been trained to think of herself as being forever oppressed and depressed, which makes it easier to sell her makeovers, clothes, cosmetics, shoes, hair styles, recipes, and of course diets.
See “Spin Sisters - How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America”
http://us.macmillan.com/spinsisters-1/MyrnaBlyth
Oprah is one of the great living spin sisters and con artists of modern times, and perhaps her interview with Lance Armstrong could be titled, “A meeting of two great con artists”.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Dale Bloom - they are entertainers - both.
Entertainment is all about deception - whether it is the use of make-up, plastic surgery, stunt doubles, camera angles, voice amplification, dubbing, lip-synching - it's endless. Yes, Oprah has used her influence to promote her pet causes - but she doesn't claim to be anything other than an entertainer.
You say "The modern woman has also been trained to think of herself as being forever oppressed and depressed..." Funny, I must be the exception that "proves the rule". Or maybe I am post-modern.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
"The modern woman has also been trained to think... " I think that's the nub of the whole issue myself Sue - down deep where it counts. Lotta fellas find that whole thinking woman business rather challenging ... bit hard to keep up... wanting stuff ... knowing what they want ... not putting up with crap ... taking off... strewth! Me socks!!!! Where's me tea????
And they spend the rest of their miserable lives seething - as duly self-designated victims and objects of oppression. And every now and again thei rattle the bars of their cage.
The good thing is they don't live long - being consumed by cortisol - unless you worthy nursey buggers come flying in with medical interventions. Hands off Our Dale you meddling women! He won't want your lofty help!
Mike Cowley
logged in via Facebook
"And every now and again the[y] rattle the bars of their cage".... You forgot the poo-flinging.....
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
OOOOOOOOOW.... is that what it is???? Erk.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Sue Ieraci
Oprah is a professional sales woman who uses the Spin Sister sales technique.
Lance Armstrong is (or was) a professional bicyclist, before he began using drugs and lying about it.
If Lance Armstrong has become honest about what he has done, he is one up on Oprah.
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
Winfrey probably believes in God, which would conveniently explain much.
Read moreWell Lance hasn't revealed anything resembling the truth yet, and i think what he comes out with, will be be both calculated and nuanced. He's indicated there's a empire about to be toppled here, and the fallout will allegedly be wide-ranging.
Clearly, chivalry isn't dead. Dale Bloom will protect The Modern Woman from their own foolish consumerist-excesses by demeaning them. However, the female respondents here don't seem…
matt88
logged in via Twitter
Lance is not going to admit anything. It will be another sportsman fluff piece where he will say "If I have disappointed anyone I am sorry". If he admits that he was involved in cheating he may go to gaol so there is no way that he will do that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was wearing an earpiece during the interview and getting advice from his lawyers on how to answer the questions
William Bennett
Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Griffith University
Well said.
Perhaps if Lance had chosen a press conference to admit his wrongdoing, I may have had a slightly better chance at believing that he is genuinely remorseful.
But Oprah!? An appearance on Oprah is so 'token', so forced. I wonder who's paying who to put this thing together?
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Isn't it interesting this "talk show confessional" business ... very medieval and puritan in a way, the public mea culpa... deeply Puritan really - even down to his being shunned... community justice.
I wonder how long before Lance is seen embracing the Lord as his saviour and redeemer. That's very popular. Public as possible. Born again - well at least you can go to the shop.
A funny place and very very thankfully different to Australia.
Sad thing is he's probably demolished this Livestrong outfit.
Incidentally when do we start hanging some of these cycling administrators on hooks?
Gary Cassidy
I suspect it will still rate well. I am looking forward to watching.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
"You hurt people, you’re devastated that you did that."
A cryin' shame so many flawed people cannot anticipate the hurt BEFORE harming others.
My feelings for Lance Armstrong are expressed here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7wQdB5ppqw&feature
John Harland
bicycle technician
Why the constant scapegoating?
Professional cyclists since at least 1920 (when Vernon Blake explained French cycling to his English readers) have regarded themselves as professional entertainers.
The public wants superhuman displays of strength and endurance and the riders have obliged with whatever assistance has been available to them.
Now we have a wave of puritanism sweeping through, a paradigm shift that makes all that sacrifice and risk into a sin and even defines sticking by your mates as evil. The dobbers are being forgiven their doping because they are blaming their own deeds and their own choices on Armstrong.
And a tip, Lauren: when I am addressed as "my friend" by a stranger I assume I am being conned.
John Harland
bicycle technician
The most-vicious attacks on Armstrong that I have read were in papers owned by a sponsor of an opposing TdF team.
Not all that was said was correct, and the vilification expressed seemed in several points to be out-of-proportion with the allegations against Armstrong.
We have a lot of allegations by people trying to save their own skins, and by people who were offended by Armstrong.
Don't believe all you read.