Somebody just asked Why did Jemima Goldsmith divorce Irman Khan?, which at least 4 closers feel is too low a question for Politics.SE -- their rationale is probably quite idealistic or academic. (Please note: I've zero interest in Irman Khan's divorce.)
Yet in this world scandals and improprieties involving politicians as often as not have real political impact:
- Voters are deeply interested in scandals of the famous, (whether rightly or unfairly), and their votes are demonstrably influenced by news of a scandal.
- Scandals can lose elections.
- Scandals cause resignations.
- Scandals can affect the stock market.
- Scandals can devour governmental processing hours, not unlike a Denial-of-service attack.
- Suppressing scandals often causes politicians to tell big lies, hire fixers, distribute bribes, beef up security, and God knows what else.
Scandals can be weaponized:
- used as blackmail that influences the entirety of some political careers. A politician with a secret can become their blackmailer's drone.
- a witch-hunter can accrue power by rooting out scandals.
- a simple personal scandal often makes an excellent distraction from some more complex policy-based bit of mischief.
- and vice-versa, some large public effort, (like a war perhaps), can be used as a distraction from some troublesome personal scandal.
Gossip and scandal are not to every person's taste, but is it wise to categorically bury them?