From private to public puritanism

Back in the sixties, JFK's affairs were not disseminated easily and widely, even though they were well known to the reporters. There was a kind of decorum in public news, especially when related to officials. Indeed, voters had the right to know, but not at the expense of privacy.
The mass-media culture eliminated privacy. Now news consumers (not voters) have the right to know every step of public people. When the Tiger Woods' scandal exploded in late November, 2009, in just few days he lost not only his wife and stainless reputation, but also contracts for about $90 million (see: WSJ "AT&T Severs Ties With Woods").
Puritanism is still strong in American society. The society is still sensitive to cases of adultery and insincerity (see also Clinton's case). In contrast, in one big Central European country the former Prime Minister could cheat to his wife for severalm months and then change her for a twenty-something years old girl, and... nobody cares. "It is his 'private' business", it is said ('private' here means not intended to be published).
Some degree of puritanism may be healthy in democracy and public life as an incentive for virtue. However neither private nor public puritanism is a virtue: prudence (the exercise of sound judgment in practical affairs) and temperance (the practice of moderation) are the missing virtues.