This is a clip from the KTLA morning news program in Los Angeles about a Shake Weight class (I’m not kidding). The segment is so inappropriate, on so many levels, in so many instances, I couldn’t look away.

Jokes are fine, but not this television train wreck. Just give me the news.

Brace yourself.

H/t: TVSpy

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

In just a few minutes on Google I found two “Facebook killers” (here and here), a “Facebook shooting,” a “MySpace murder trial” and a “Twitter murder.” Then, of course, there is the “Craigslist Killer.”

Now, it’s Match.com’s turn to be associated with a crime.

The dating site will now screen its members against the National Sex Offender Registry. This is after a California woman, Carole Markin, alleges she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on the dating site. Here are some of the facts of the case from CNN/HLN:

Markin claims she met a man named Alan Wurtzel, who according to the lawsuit has a record of “six separate convictions for sexual battery” in Los Angeles County alone.

She told HLN that Wurtzel forced her to perform sexual acts on him, at her residence, while they were on their second date.

Markin said afterward, “I looked up his name (on the computer) and I saw that he had a bad past.”

An attorney for Wurtzel, in a statement sent to HLN, said her client and Markin engaged in consensual, romantic contact together and then, “Eight days later she inexplicably called police.”

The civil class action lawsuit against Match says the dating site failed, “to undertake a basic screening process that disqualifies from membership anyone who has a documented history of sexual assault.”

First, let me say that this woman is not to be blamed at all for what allegedly happened. Her attacker is to blame.

But I don’t think Match is to blame either.

In an interview on “Good Morning America,” titled “Match.com Assault Victim Speaks Out,” Markin said, “I just didn’t expect that there would be somebody with a criminal background on the service… When you’ve met nice successful men previously on the same site, you just don’t assume the worst.”

A stranger is a stranger no matter where you meet them. And you can’t blame the website or bar or library where you meet someone if they say one thing, but turn out to be something else.

I was on Match for six months before I met my wife Holly there. It was a good experience, but as I perused profiles, I knew I couldn’t completely know a prospective date from what I learned about them on Match. As much “winking,” emailing or talking on the phone transpired, those first dates were blind dates in many ways. I was still meeting a stranger.

What’s bothering me about this story is that it portrays the Internet as a uniquely scary place. It’s the implication that this alleged crime happened because of its connection to an Internet dating site.

Match.com president Mandy Ginsberg said “Match.com is a fantastic service, having changed the lives of millions of people through the relationships and marriages it has given rise to, but people have to exercise common sense and prudence with people they have just met, whether through an online dating service or any other means [emphasis added].” Exactly.

I once read somewhere that the Internet is like life. Many good things happen every day, but bad things can happen too. Steps can be taken to reduce the risk of some of those bad things from happening, but the Internet itself isn’t to blame.

The Internet is still relatively new and it’s human nature for someone to fear what they don’t know. The news media uses well-known companies and crime to create headlines that try to exploit that fear for ratings or (ironically) pageviews. These crimes are actually about the people who allegedly committed them and their victims. The crimes themselves shouldn’t be an indictment of the way in which they met.

I bring up my moderate interest in the wedding because of the very extreme ways people are reacting to the wedding. There is the news media who are going over the top with coverage. It’ll be interesting to see if they’ll feel it was worth the expense and effort when it’s all over.

But then there are the folks at the other end of the interest spectrum. Not the people who shrug off this real-life over-the-top reality show like they would shrug off a made-for-TV over-the-top reality show. This is anger. Check out Lawrence O’Donnell on “The Last Word:”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First: The TV networks “obviously would have been on the side of the British” in the Revolutionary War. Huh? And second: The “British Crown has spilled more blood around the world and caused more oppression and suffering in the world than any other regime still standing”? History should never be forgotten, but why is O’Donnell still fighting a war we won over two centuries ago against a country that is one of America’s closest allies?

Yes, the British Empire was involved in the slave trade and the oppression of Indians, and the conflict in Northern Ireland is still unsettled. But every country, including the U.S., has done bad things as a matter of policy. Every country is a glass house. O’Donnell shouldn’t throw stones.

And then there’s Mark Oppenheimer flexing his “American-ness” in Slate. He says one reason for American Anglophilia is the theory that people who are oppressed by a country “internalize the message of the oppressor” and end up loving it. “The child who rejects his mother often loves her more than the child who simply drifts away.” Then he says:

If American royal-worship were confined to this twisted pathology of self-loathing, or to buying newsstand copies of People magazine every time Princess Diana is exhumed for another cover story, it would not be such a problem. But instead we forget our American-ness. We shuck and jive—I mean bow and curtsy—for the royal box at Wimbledon’s Center Court. We call them “the Queen Mother,” “Prince Charles,” or “Your Highness,” instead of the more American, and more dignified, “Mrs. Windsor” or “Charles.” We accept their worthless titles. We forget ourselves.

Not really. Americans love titles. We love a good Doctor, Senator, Madam Secretary or Mr. President. (The seemingly obligatory Mister in “Mr. Trump” has implied reverence, but I hope after this week everyone will go back to calling him “Donald” with the appropriately worthless title The.) While a doctor, cabinet member, and president have actually done something to earn their title other than just being born to a certain family, a title still adds an air of nobility to the person using it.

So, the aristocracy and nobility in a country reflect some of its values: Birthright and money in countries that still value royal families; achievement and money in America.

I can see why a lot of Americans don’t care about the wedding. The Windsors have no direct ties to America and there are a lot of bigger things going on in the world. Wills and Kate’s big day is just as much a celebrity wedding and soap opera as it is history and tradition. But why are some people getting their knickers in a twist? Watch the wedding, or just.. don’t. Taking a stand against the nuptials between a royal groom, who had a famous mother, and his “commoner” bride isn’t much of a stand to take.

Representative Chris Lee (R-N.Y.) resigned from the House of Representatives this week following an email flirtation with a woman he met after responding to an ad in the “Women Seeking Men” section of Craigslist. Sadly for him, the woman also knows how to use Google to look up people’s names, and how to send emails to Gawker.

See the Gawker reporter who broke the story.

And while it’s remarkable what 24 hours can do to damage the life of a politician with high libido, low impulse control and a camera phone, I want to – instead – look at one particular sentence that the Washington Post wrote in their article covering the incident:

“The familiar cycles of a Washington sex scandal were compressed into a blur of tweets and news alerts.”

This sentence is remarkable to me in so many ways.  Take the first part: “The familiar cycles of a Washington sex scandal…” Can you feel the fatigue in that sentence? The implied “here we go again” sigh? The list of scandals pepper the headlines of the past: The obvious Clinton-Lewinsky saga, Newt Gingrich’s affair with aide Callista Bisek, Elliot Spitzer’s foray into, well, whatever it was. And just recently, new allegations about Speaker John Boehner having multiple affairs (reported by The Enquirer, but possibly coming closer to being printed in a more reputable news source soon.)

But even the San Francisco Chronicle’s online version of Lee’s recent misbehaviors asks of the many scandals, “Is anyone keeping count?”  The answer is, yes. We are. The same way we keep track of celebs who are dragged to rehab time after time. There’s an equal mixture of distain and train-wreck-curiosity that simultaneously makes us want more juicy details (Are there more photos? More women?) while also claiming we’re above it all.

Let’s also take the second part of the Post’s sentence: “…compressed into a blur of tweets and news alerts.” Within hours, the man’s dalliances were posted on thousands of websites, and tweeted relentlessly (not without some humor, mind you: “cellphone camera is the worst thing to happen to men with bad impulse control”). The story broke at noon, and by 3pm, he had resigned. That is astounding to me. Pre-Internet news, this would have taken weeks to formulate and resolve itself. Now, a man’s career is over in 3 hours (barring any further revelations, which I have an inkling might be lurking somewhere in Rep. Lee’s email box.)

So, as another politician’s sex scandal flashes through the headlines, this time it’s not the weeks-long-affair (no pun intended) of news days gone by. Within hours, it’s published, denied and verified. Capitulations are made, leading to the astoundingly rapid resignation of a rising politician. The news cycle gets faster and faster, thanks to emailed photos, online news distribution, fast-forward Twittering, email tracking, Google, and Gawker. This was the 3-hour flash scandal. Do I hear 3 minutes?

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t over.  The former Rep. Lee will definitely write a book, possibly get a divorce, and may even be offered a talk show on a cable news network depending on his level of charisma. He may even make his lie come true and become – as he stated in his emails – a lobbyist.

Then again, maybe it’s better if he just disappears. The statement on his website,“I have made profound mistakes,” leaves me – and undoubtedly a thousand tabloid reporters – asking one question: Why is the word “mistakes” plural?

You can follow Beth on her blog and on Twitter.

Here’s the entire interview.

Thomas, Nasr, Sanchez and Williams were let go for expressing personal opinions in informal settings or places where they were the interview subjects. Because they put themselves in positions where the public was looking for the them to offer insight, perspective and a bit of their personality, their opining put them in positions to get in trouble with their employers.

Embracing the new media age where journalists and news organizations are trying to get their brands on many different platforms is turning out to be tricky. Some embrace this, but it’s also making it hard to appear impartial, and for some, stay employed. Not all personalities or opinions are likable, and everyone has fears and prejudices. It’s a balance – or tension – between getting more of the personal brand or personality “out there” to help grow the professional brand, while not having either brand offend anyone. It’s like the new digital age is telling them, “Put more of yourself out there, but don’t let anyone see who you really are.”

I’m not condoning what any of them said, but terminating someone isn’t necessarily the way to handle mistakes like these. If media companies want more content, how about having a substantive discussion with the journalist about why the offending remark was made? If a remark wasn’t made out of gross recklessness or unadulterated bigotry, there maybe an opportunity to explore where the remark came from, why it was made and inform the public about the issues surrounding it. News organizations are constantly looking for content to put on air, online and in print. There’s your content.

In the case of Williams, a good idea would have been to have thoughtful discussion about the origins of bigotry and fear how and to overcome them.. and have it on NPR.

The heat and level of the debate over the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque” – that isn’t at Ground Zero and is more community center than mosque – has lowered and will probably stay low for some time. Protests were held on Sunday with supporters and opponents of the space that is now known as Park51. Everyone has chimed in on the issue: Obama, Palin, Newt, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (whose speech on the subject was powerful), and everyone else with an opinion or an election to win.

With the media and the public’s short attention spans, there are other things to report on – the egg recall, the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, plus whatever else comes up – and there seems to be nothing more to move the Park51 story forward. There’s not much left for talking-heads or politicians to dissect on cable news.

So, after spending several weeks listening to people talk about it, especially here in New York, I hope we have a better understanding of ourselves as a country. The debate touched on our basic rights as Americans as well as current issues the country faces: Freedom of religion, property rights, immigration, the changing racial and ethnic composition of the country, America’s relationship with the Muslim world, 9/11.

I hate to use the phrase “teachable moment,” but there must be a lesson here. Emotions have been high for several weeks now. Adding to the tension are the protests and opposition to proposed mosques in other parts of the country, and a recent poll showing about 1/5 of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. America showed some of its true colors in the last few weeks. There is clearly a strong, or at least vocal, Islamophobic streak here.

So, what’s next on this issue?

Is the controversy dead? Will it come up again as we approach the mid-term elections?

What about the issues that surfaced during the debate? What did we learn about ourselves?

Leave your comments below.