MLK laid low by scandal

You've probably already heard of MLK's fabled scandals, details of which have never been released to the public. These appear to be real, and not merely fabrications on the part of Hoover's FBI or other agencies. Whatever those scandals are, they'd be a lot more explosive in the 1960s than today.

But what if, instead of being assassinated in 1968, Dr. King lives on (James Earl Ray remains in Mexico throughout the rest of the 1960s in this TL), only to face having his dirty laundry aired in December of that year? (We'll assume the leakers are some disgruntled high-ranking agents of the FBI, perhaps. They'll be anonymous at least in the beginning).

What are the effects on the Civil Rights Movement, and where does history go from there?
 
The standards of the media for airing dirty personal laundry were very different than they are today and I'm not really sure what news outlets would have printed or aired this. In general, private matters like this remained private and were not considered newsworthy unless there was some connection between the private behavior and one's public responsibilities. With King, who was a public figure, but remained a private citizen and clergyman, it seems hard, if not impossible, to establish a connection between his private life and public role. Remember in this that this was a time when there was not an internet and multiple "news" outlets residing thereon. You had three national networks and a few major newspapers and magazines with national reach plus a couple of wire services. It's hard for me to see allegations against King getting past these gatekeepers. At best, you might see this circulating in a few fringe publications like the John Birch Society newsletter and things printed on a mimeograph machine. You won't see this in a wire service story, in the New York Times or on CBS/NBC/ABC.
 
I have to agree with Apollo 20, while this would be scandalous the 1960's are not the 2000's with different attitudes. And he's also right that there aren't nearly as many media outlets to distribute this information as there are today.

And this will be denied venominetely, unless there's concrete evidence to show people it won't do the damage it might today...
 
It's not just affairs, he was supposed to have plagiarized his thesis if I recall correctly. This would probably be more likely to be reported than, for example, an affair, which in my opinion probably would have been reported too. Maybe not on the cover of the Times but certainly reported. It's big news.
 
Given that the 60s media outlets might not have published about his scandals, a more interesting quations would be if he decided to stay out of the public eye after OTL assassination (TTL, say the bullet misses and he caves tot he FBI blackmail). But it's not my post, so don't let me hijack it. Continue speculating if the media would pick it up or not.
 
The Dixiecrats didn't use it because many had African American lady friends. The birchers mention immoral behavior through their spokesperson Alan strang, and former press baron George schulyar.
 
It's not just affairs, he was supposed to have plagiarized his thesis if I recall correctly. This would probably be more likely to be reported than, for example, an affair, which in my opinion probably would have been reported too. Maybe not on the cover of the Times but certainly reported. It's big news.
Is it? Serious question. It is, at this point, 11 years in the past, and from a time before King's public career. BU would doubtless cover its ass and exonerate MLK.
 
The matter at hand: what would King be doing that everyone from Lyndon Johnson to Nelson Rockefeller, the CEO of Ford to the owner of the local grocery chain were not? Because men of power were shockingly adulterous in the era, unfortunately. It's not just JFK or a few names that come to mind. It was a widespread backroom culture.
 
Aren't the tapes and other evidence locked in a vault until next decade/2030s or something, the reason being that the FBI didn't want to leak them because it might cause more violence on the part of both sides?

The matter at hand: what would King be doing that everyone from Lyndon Johnson to Nelson Rockefeller, the CEO of Ford to the owner of the local grocery chain were not? Because men of power were shockingly adulterous in the era, unfortunately. It's not just JFK or a few names that come to mind. It was a widespread backroom culture.

But no one was supposed to be doing it, and people could safely pretend that everyone was faithful to their spouse except some "dirty people".
 

Ak-84

Banned
The matter at hand: what would King be doing that everyone from Lyndon Johnson to Nelson Rockefeller, the CEO of Ford to the owner of the local grocery chain were not? Because men of power were shockingly adulterous in the era, unfortunately. It's not just JFK or a few names that come to mind. It was a widespread backroom culture.
No. They were not any more or less adulterous; they were just less likely to get caught and have it exposed.

I think if it is revealed, it would severely wound King.
 
No. They were not any more or less adulterous; they were just less likely to get caught and have it exposed.

I think if it is revealed, it would severely wound King.

Agreed, but getting that information out won't be easy...
 
Top