Opinion The gate that won’t close

Globally,it’s the same story. British newspapers not owned by Rupert Murdoch coined “hackgate” for the illegal phone hacking by journalists,golfer Tiger Woods’s extramarital exploits became “Tigergate’,while Bill Clinton’s escapades in the White House were dubbed “Monicagate”. Watergate has reshaped the language of scandal and controversy in a format that extends beyond English-speaking commentaries. The Japanese used “recruitgate” to describe a government scandal. The dictionary has a separate entry on the suffix “-gate” — used as “a terminal element denoting an actual or alleged scandal (and usually an attempted cover-up),in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972”.

Sadly,we live in an age when metaphors,slogans and catchy quotes contribute to the resonance and recall of events. They provide mental images that slide easily into the hard disk of individual historical recollections. Yet,nothing can match the durability and instant connection of anything with a -gate suffix. Michael Schudson,a behavioural scientist at the University of California,explains that “this was the mother of all modern political scandals. Watergate became the touchstone,the definitive point of reference for subsequent political scandals in the United States and an archetype for political scandals around the world”.

That may be,but 40 years on,it has become the global media’s automatic reset button each time any event takes place that involves politicians or governments indulging in shady activities,even if that is unproven at the time of going to press. Such usages have been criticised by commentators as misleading. The -gate suffix adds a thin veil of credibility to any scandal,however minor. Most cannot compare with the extended and painstaking investigation by two Washington Post reporters that brought down a presidency. Such instant headlines reduce everything to the same level,even if the events being referred to have vastly different origins or consequences. Sociologist John Thompson called it “scandal syndrome”,suggesting that by reducing news to a series of slogans,we contribute to a “climate of political crisis” that impoverishes public debate. Today,the -gate suffix has been appended to everything that journalists deem even semi-important,and even then most cases are a stretch. Wikipedia lists over 100 instances of media-inspired events given the -gate suffix. There are 27 listed uses in the world of sport,ranging from the match-fixing scandal by Pakistani cricketers to the use of Vaseline by a martial arts fighter and frequent toilet trips by a chess player. We even had “nipplegate”,involving a wardrobe malfunction by singer Janet Jackson.

The question is whether these events are in any way comparable to a US president’s misdeeds being exposed by an example of truly outstanding journalism. Even though most of these events are shortlived,the -gate suffix endures,having broken all ties with the Watergate building. Many would call it a sloppy cliche,especially 40 years after the original event. Stanley I. Kutler,in his book on Watergate,wrote that “Watergate seems doomed to be trivialised. If the media is to be believed,Watergate’s most enduring impact seems to be the legacy of a suffix.” Indeed,any scandal,however local,instantly gains new impetus and importance by just the inclusion of the very word. What it suggests is that there have been no other scandals in the last 40 years that could give us a new way to refer to something scandalous. That’s hard to believe,but the media seems to be stuck with the gate that just won’t close. When Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wore his signature sweatshirt to meet with investors before his company’s initial public offering recently,the fallout of his failure to dress more appropriately was labelled “hoodiegate”. Richard Nixon’s legacy,it seems,has been reduced to a four letter word.

dilip.bobb@expressindia.com