Truth or Consequences

Many years ago, in the 'hay-days' of radio, a show called "Truth or Consequences" was the rage. When television became popular, the show was picked up by a TV network and became an instant hit. Under the direction of the show's host, contestants had to answer a trivia question correctly in about two seconds before "Beulah the Buzzer" was sounded. Usually an off-the-wall question that no one would be able to answer correctly, or a bad joke, was featured. If the contestant couldn't complete the "Truth" portion there would be "Consequences". Frequently they had to perform a zany and embarrassing stunt - and from the start, most contestants preferred to answer the question wrong in order to perform the stunt! The show became so popular that the host once announced that he would do the program from the first town that renamed itself in honor of the program - and so it is that in 1950 Hot Springs, New Mexico was renamed "Truth or Consequences".

In recent times I've been moved to recall that show (yes, I'm old enough to have watched it on our black & white TV set, complete with "rabbit ears") as one after another we've witnessed the fall from grace of many an iconic brand. No matter whether they're corporate or individual personalities, many have acted like they've been guests on that long-ago show. Toyota, Lehman Brothers, Royal Bank of Scotland; Martha Stewart, Elliott Spitzer, Tiger Woods. The list goes on. Should I now be adding Goldman Sachs name to that?

What strikes me as odd about all this is not so much 'what' those and others not referenced here have done (but that does give pause!) But the fact that they so aggressively attempted to cover over the facts of their issue. Are we more upset because of Toyota's apparent major defect issues, or has our faith been dented because they didn't tell the truth immediately? Are we jaundiced by the fact that Tiger was supposedly living the life of a serial philanderer, or are we more confused because he took so long to 'come clean' with the truth? Have we lost trust in many of our banks because they so willingly participated in activities that have led to the sub-prime debacle, or is it because they have taken so long to admit 'mea culpa'?

The old saying "the truth will set you free" was never more true than now. So what is it about our make-up that makes it so difficult for us to 'come clean' when we're the ones who have erred? Is it simply how we're "wired" - our DNA? Or is it because the truth - the deep-down honest to goodness truth - is so hard to explain some times? Sadly, the root cause of the situation in the first place is more often than not because we fail to put our family's or customer's or shareholder's interests ahead of our own. That's when things start to 'head south'.

On Truth or Consequences the signoff at the end of the show was "here's hoping all your consequences are happy ones." Unfortuntely, in real life when we don't readily tell the truth, this is rarely the case. Little wonder the show was so popular.