Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.[Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.]

To some extent, I agree with the author, that scandals could be used to draw people's attention, making them notice some problem in ways that speaking or reform purposal can't do. 
As we all know, the public is sometimes lack necessary background knowledge to fully understand a issue. And since the speakers and reformers usually work formerly, to understand what they're talking about needs these very knowledge. Therefore, under such circumstances, a scandal may render people to notice the problem, because it is more sensational than a formal speaking or purposal. For example, American public cannot be so empathetic to those Iraqi POWs (prisoner of war) because of the gap between the direct environment and religious belief of them and that of the POWs, and their lack of information, though the abuse to these POW had last for a long while. However, after this scandal was exposed by mass media, the public become very concerning about it in a short time, and finally their concern contributed to the resolve of the problem, and the amelioration of POWs' condition. It is hard to imagine that such problem get resolved due to a speaker or a reformer because less will pay attention to that on such an issue they don't understand. That means, scandal may be useful because it is usually enough lurid.
Even for some problems more close to our daily life, scandal are sometimes helpful for resolving them, since its explosive effect "forces" public to care about the problems: in such context, the unjust can no longer be ignored or evaded. For example, the racial discrimination in professional sport leagues has been for long a problem, but the public have not pay such a high attention on it until the boss of Los Angels Clippers has been reported responsible for some extreme racialism statements. This scandal soon became an big earthquake: nearly every players, employers and managers condemned Mr. Sterling for his inappropriate attitude, and the NBA finally deprived his ownership of the club and forced him to sell it to a new owner, in order to appease players and the public. I don't think there isn't any speaker or reformers who ever mentioned this problem. But it is so surface only with the help of scandal. That means, scandal may be useful because its considerable impact.
And the opponents may argue that scandals have side effects. For example, public may pay more attention to the scandal itself rather than the more serious problem. Or the public, and even media, may exploit the scandal to make fun or profit, rather than do good for those need help. These side effects do happen sometimes. But I think this is another question. At least, a scandal elicits our attention and curiosity. No matter how much of them will be paid on problems, it makes us careful; and for some problems it is difficult for public to be so concerning with only speakers or reformers. Thus I don't want to deny the usefulness of scandals, yet I admit that we should do something to "make better use" of scandals to resolve problems and make changes. That's why I somewhat agree with the author's statement.