So you think you know me?

For quite some time now, two words have deeply bothered me. Well, I guess it’s not the words that bother me, it’s the misuse (and often misunderstanding) of the words. Superficial and reputation are words that are commonly, in my opinion, applied incorrectly. Today, I’ll give my most valiant attempt at attacking the word reputation as I see its use in our language.

According to Webster’s dictionary, reputation is:
1 a : overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general b : recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability
2 : a place in public esteem or regard : good name

When a celebrity, who has a good reputation, makes a mistake, they are often defended by some and castigated by others. Someone, like me, might defend the person by saying that “I don’t think (fill in the blank person) would do something like that (i.e. commit such a crime). Then someone might respond to me, “Do you know him/her?” I might respond, “yes,” despite having never actually met the celebrity. I might respond in such fashion because no one really knows anyone. Therefore, we have to rely on the images that we see of any person, whether we know them or not, to determine our view of someone’s character. If that weren’t the case, then we might as well just throw the word reputation out of our language.

If you don’t believe me, consider this: Every year, tens of thousands of women discover that their spouses are cheating on them, or leading a double life. They find out that the man they thought they knew isn’t what he appeared to be. Whole families are destroyed, and sometimes communities are devastated. Now, if a person doesn’t even KNOW the man that they sleep with every night, then why does anyone feel that they know someone else? Well, I’ll tell ya’. They feel that they know the other person because they have been given a snapshot (sometimes a really big one, sometimes a very small one) of a person, and have decided that the person has a particular character and thus is or is not capable of committing some acts.

The biggest example that jumps out to me is of a wealthy man living in Florida. I recall reading this story on CNN.com last year (I can’t find the link now, but once I do, I’ll post it). This man had been married for about forty years. He had a number of children with his wife, and was considered a pillar in the community. During the course of his marriage, he began “dating” another woman from a city that was a number of miles away. He also had kids and a family with this lady. Neither family knew about the other until his wife died in her car when she was suffocated by exhaust fumes with the garage door down. Shortly after his wife died, like two weeks, the man married his mistress of nearly three decades. This caused much suspicion from his dead wife’s children, and that’s when his double life was discovered.

Not only was his family shocked by this revelation, but also his community, and it was so stunning that it made national headlines. His wife and their kids didn’t know; his mistress and her kids didn’t know; no one in the community suspected this (especially out of a man that was so well esteemed). Even though his family knew him, they didn’t really know him. So, the picture of himself that he presented the world with was one that would’ve never suggested he was leading a double life. Anyone that knew him or not, might have given you similar character testimonies about the man. Obviously the people that actually knew him would have deeper insight, and certainly more validation in making such character justifications, but all would’ve been wrong, at least concerning his fidelity. Therefore I, having not known the man, could have made legitimate statements concerning what I think he would or wouldn’t do based on the testimony of those close to him, and by the way he was portrayed to me.

Often, when celebrities go on trial, a group of people that don’t know the celebrity defend the celebrity. Not in the courtroom, but in casual conversations amongst friends. Then there’s always that “aware” person who’s like “yeah, but do you know” the celebrity. Their point being that you can’t defend a celebrity if you’ve never met them.

I terribly disagree.

When a person consistently does good things, they build up trust and respect from the common person; even those people that don’t know them. This is beneficial because when a false accusation comes against that person, their reputation comes up “to bat” for them. People will come screaming out of the wood-work to defend that person because that person stored away a bank full of credibility and trust.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at two prominent athletes that have been accused of the same crime: Mike Tyson, and Kobe Bryant. (Please don’t misjudge me for using cases of sexual assault as my basis for argument. I understand that this is a very serious topic and I understand the gravity of it. However, due to the extensive media coverage of these cases, I think it will be quite easy for me to make my point. Finally, understand that I am taking no sides for or against these athletes; they are either guilty or they aren’t. I am in no position to say either way, I’m just trying to make a point.)

Back in 1991, when “Iron” Mike Tyson was charged with sexually assaulting a young lady at a beauty pageant, there were obviously those that both believed and those that didn’t believe the allegations. As I recall, there wasn’t a huge media outcry to keep Tyson out of jail. Tyson had a history of violent behavior, and indeed had a physically abusive past with his ex-wife Robin Givens. He was often described as an Animal, both in the ring and out. Tyson, though claiming to be innocent, was subsequently convicted and thrown into jail.

Fast-forward to the summer of 2003. Basketball phenom Kobe Bryant is alleged to have sexually assaulted a young lady in Colorado. I watched countless hours of ESPN, and other sports outlets to hear what people were saying. Time after time, I heard people exclaiming that no one should jump to any conclusions and that Kobe was a well respected person, and his clean past didn’t lend itself to such conduct. Only time will tell if Kobe also goes to jail, however, I do immediately recognize a difference in how the two cases were viewed in the eyes of sportscaster’s and the general public.

It’s much easier to put Mike Tyson behind bars than Kobe Bryant simply because Tyson had a bad history, whereas Bryant had a squeaky clean past. Kobe’s good reputation came up to bat for him, whether he’s guilty or not. Tyson's reputation helped to strike him out despite any evidence that may have suggested his innocence.

And I wouldn’t fault anyone that doesn’t know Kobe for defending him because something has to be said for someone that has good enough sense to keep their dirty laundry (if they have any) out of public view. Likewise, I didn’t have any ill-feelings towards people who knew (as if they were in the room when it was happening) that Mike Tyson was guilty, because he was an openly violent person that certainly fit the bill.

My point is that the reputation a person has attained is merely determined by what that person allows us to see of themself. And, even if you’ve never met a person, you could make a justifiable assumption about that person’s character based on what people that know them say. Otherwise, there would be no need for the word “reputation.”

So either throw the word reputation out of the dictionary (since no one really knows anyone), or accept the fact that I can know someone that I’ve never even met before.

-Maelstrom