"US television networks and media outlets in recent years have been increasingly willing to help rehabilitate disgraced politicians and public figures by offering them air time."

This disturbs me as I realize the truth of it. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? And what can be done about it if it's a bad thing?

He seems genuinely interested in reforming the system that let him commit such abuses.

So in his case, I think it's a good thing because he's calling for more transparency.

In general? There's way more on TV than should be. :)

My concern is that it seems crime pays quite well. A few years in a minimum security prison (Did Mr. Spitzer serve any time???) and they land jobs that pay well more than the average American worker. This seems grossly unfair to me.

It is quite unfair, because it transformed them from public servants to entertainer / celebrities.

Why is society good with celebrities behaving badly?

Is it just in America that we prefer damaged celebrities or is it the same everywhere? Sounds like something someone somewhere would have wrote their doctoral thesis on that @bakadesuyo would have nicely summarized.

There's actually a very good reason for this: "disgraced" politicians become too toxic to be useful lobbyists or to sit on corporate boards, both of which tend to pay better than CNN, MSNBC, Fox or other media.

http://pandawhale.com/convo/3219/why-everything-sucks-youtube Here is a nice summary of why we like celebrities so much...

That's brilliant!