The term "public
figure" covers a relatively large spectrum of people who share the
commonality of being widely known, this can range from those who play a
recognized important role in shaping society such as politicians or CEOs to
celebrities who simply court media attention; a public figure then could simply
be described as a person who is known by a large mass of a given populous. Most
public figures will utilizes the media to get a message across to the public
which helps further an agenda, the power public figures wield in shaping public
opinions and perceptions is potentially huge, the media in their role not only
as broadcaster but also as watchdog make the claim they should be able to
publish information about the private lives of such publics figures as it is in
the public interest given the power they have, public figures argue that while
investigation into their public work is fine there private affairs should be
treated differently, they state they still deserve the right to privacy that
everyone else is allowed.
The extent to which the media are legally free to investigate and publish
details of public figures' private lives varies from country to country. For
example, France is much stricter on protecting personal privacy than Britain
is. The debate has recently been given additional importance by the development
of Human Rights law within Europe, as privacy is now classed as a right under
the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as by political scandals in
many countries which have highlighted the need to scrutinize public figures'
behavior much more closely. However the extent to which media organizations
intrude also needs to be assessed, as is demonstrated by the closure of the UK
newspaper News of the World in 2011 when it was revealed they not only hacked
into celebrities phones but also those of politicians, victims of terrorism and
the presumed missing then found dead phone of 13 year old Milly Dowler. Should
then the private lives of public figures be fully scrutinized or should the
right to privacy trump the freedom of the press?
|
Pros
|
Cons
|
|
No clear dividing line between public and private can
be made. No clear dividing line can be
drawn between public and private behavior, drawing up rules would be
arbitrary and would prevent some corrupt, dubious or dishonest behavior from
being exposed. For example, President Mitterrand of France hid his cancer
from the French electorate for years, was this a public or a private matter?
He also had a mistress and illegitimate daughter, who were secretly taken on
some of his foreign visits at state expense; again, is this a private or a
public matter? The creation of solid distinction could would undermine the
power of the press to carry out its watchdog role, in a scenario where such
strict rules existed something in the public interest could be transpiring in
the private lives of public figures and the media powerless to report it.
|
Much media reporting of private lives is not being done
under a watchdog mandate but rather to simply titillate the audience with
gossip which is unnecessary for the public to know. Having distinct rules as
to what can and cannot be reported on is important to protect the lives of
public figures who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Such
firm distinctions between what is public and private and what can and cannot
be reported will of course on occasion limit the press from unveiling a story
which may be very important for the world to know about, however on the whole
what such regulation would do is ensure that the vast majority of reporting
which is of no use to the public and is being published at the detriment of
someone's private life is severely restricted if not eliminated, this is the
ethical thing to do as it ensures that the right to privacy is universal.
|
|
It's what the public want to know about. Newspapers are simply publishing the kind of stories the
public want to read, it is no accident that the best-selling newspapers in
the UK are the tabloids which regularly publish stories into the private
lives of celebrities and that some of the highest rating news shows in the US
are loaded with celebrity gossip. The News of the World, which pushed the
boundaries of intrusion right up to its closure in 2011, was consistently
Britain's most-read newspaper. When you enter a career which is in the public
domain, in particular those such as acting, which often requires courting the
media to gain publicity, it is well known that intrusion into your private
life may occur. It could even be argued that by entering such a profession
you agree to forfeit your right to privacy as a condition of entry.
Thereafter, when success has been gained via manipulating the press it is
hypocritical to complain of "press intrusion". Celebrities should
not bemoan the media for simply providing information that the public wish to
read.
|
By creating celebrities in the first place the media is
often creating artificial demand for such stories; it is too simplistic to
suggest that such stories are what the public wants in light of this. There
will, however, always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the
lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny
public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy; the media
likes to portray itself as an important pillar in society and democracy, and
while in some respects it is, by undermining the law by disregarding the
right to privacy the newspapers are in fact damaging their own justification
for their existence. The argument that many celebrities have courted the
media for their fame is a misnomer, it can often be a bi-product of their
career, why should their lives be necessarily punished via having their
private lives scrutinized by the public just because it's what the public may
want?
|
|
Those in power need to be held to account. All people that are considered public figures have, to
one degree or another, the power to affect society, be it in an overt way via
politics or economics or more subtly via changing peoples' perceptions of the
world. These people need to held to account and the media is the most
effective way of doing this as normal people do not have the time to
scrutinize everything pubic figures are doing whereas the media can. If the
private lives of public figures are conflicting with their actual persona it
is in the public interest to reveal this. For example in 2009 during the UK's
"MPs expenses scandal" it was revealed that some MPs, whose
responsibility it is to create and review laws, were breaking their own tax
laws in their private lives, this clearly demonstrates a misuse of their
position and deserves to be known. Another such example can be seen with
golfer Tiger Woods who was meant to represent excellence, determination and
most importantly he was presented as an ideal clean-cut role model however
this image was found out to be a sham when stories into his private life revealed
he was being unfaithful to his wife admitting to numerous affairs, this came
to light as a direct result of media reporting into his turbulent private
life and it is in the public interest to know due to the power he and others
wield as a public icons.
|
Of course people
need to be held to account and in some cases the publication of private
affairs of public figures can be justified, but on the whole most reporting
into the private lives of public figures is simply gossip which the public
has no need to know and is holding no-one to account, it is often simply
being used to sell media products. There are hundreds of examples which could
be cited of such intrusion, often involving actors/actresses and models which
offer no real justification at all as to why they were printed. Printing
stories of celebrities on holiday for example is not holding them to account
or benefiting society in an active positive way.
This can also extend to those in more traditional power
roles, is it in the public interest to know all the details about the private
lives of politicians and CEOs if what is being reported does not have a
direct effect on their role? For example Max Mosley the now ex-president of
the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a group which not only
represents the interests of motoring organizations but is also the governing
body for Formula One, was exposed in 2008 by the now defunct News of the
World newspaper as being involved in a sadomasochistic sex act which involved
several female prostitutes. The reporting of this was unnecessary as the
event did not have a direct effect on his running of the FIA and was
therefore not in the public interest to know. Mosley took the case to the UK
High Court claiming infringement of his private life and the court found in
his favor.
|
|
Many politicians in their campaigns make an explicit or
implicit point out of emphasizing their family values and other aspects of
their "private" life, for example by being photographed with their
loyal family, and through policy stands on such issues as divorce, single
mothers, sex education or drugs for example. If the public image such people
seek to create is at variance with their own practice, such hypocrisy
deserves to be exposed. This would not be to the detriment of democracy, it
in fact improves it as it would encourage future politicians to ensure that
they live by what they preach, rather than cynically trying to manipulate the
media into creating a false image of who they are only for it to be fatally
undermined by their own actions.
|
Unrestricted scrutiny into private lives could be a
detriment to democracy. Continual probing
into the private lives of public figures actually harms the functioning of
democracy. Very few potential political candidates, for example, will have
entirely spotless private lives, free from embarrassing indiscretions
committed while young and irresponsible. The prospect of fierce and
unforgiving press scrutiny will thus deter many from seeking public office
and deny their talents to the public good. Those who do present themselves
for election will therefore tend to be rather unrepresentative individuals of
a puritanical nature, whose views on sex, family life, drugs to name but a
few may be skewed and intolerant as a result. The sex scandals of Elliott
Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, to use just New York politicians, are not
therefore representative of New York as a whole, but rather a system that is
only attractive to those who believe in their own invincibility and
potentially lack the necessary humility to truly represent their
constituents.
|
|
As previously stated upon entering a profession which
involves being in the public limelight one should expect to be put under such
stresses, if you are publicly known there will be a demand for information
about you and the media is simply obtaining stories which their readership
wish to consume. The Diana example was, as the opposition argument expresses,
and extraordinary case, one which is extremely rare, and from which lessons
have been learnt. However there are codes of ethics which all journalists
sign up to of which all contain caveats to ensure that physical and mental
harm is kept to a minimum if in existence at all. While on occasion a
journalist can fail to live up-to these ethics they are, on the whole, well
adhered to and when not professional, sanctions often take place to minimize
such an issue from occurring again.
|
The media could be endangering peoples' mental and
physical health. Pursuing stories
regarding the lives of public figures could be putting the health of the
person being pursued and their families lives in danger. The most extreme and
infamous case of this would most arguably be the events which are said to
have contributed to the untimely death of Princess Diana, whereby her car crashed
into the wall of a tunnel having been pursued by tabloid journalists and
paparazzi seeking an ultimately trivial story. While this was an
extraordinary event it does show the extent to which journalists have been
known to pursue public figures for a story which undoubtedly puts stresses
onto the targets and their families lives which could leave to both health
issues and psychological distress.
|
|
Whether or not a public figure has chosen to be a role
model, if they have become one they have a moral duty to society to ensure
they represent all the things a good role model should. While a footballer
may just want to be a footballer and simply the reach highest level in the
game, they have to accept that people at the top of the sport are necessarily
role models - it comes with the territory. In addition to this, many sporting
personalities and others in different fields go on to promote organizations.
If their behavior contradicts the message they are promoting the public has a
right to know this as it is a case of deceiving the public. Being a public
figure in any of its guises should be seen as a special exception to the
privacy law as their success is founded on communication media in one sense
or another.
|
Those in public positions deserve the same privacy
rights as the general public. Many public
figures achieve celebrity status largely by mistake; it is a by-product of
their pursuit of success in their particular field. For example, most
professional footballers wanted when young simply to become the best player
they could be, at the highest level they could reach. As Tottenham Hotspur
Football Club defender Benoit Assou-Ekotto has stated, he had no desire to
end up in an office job he wasn't suited to so football became the means to
ensure he could live out his life comfortably. Expelled from school, he
assumed the profession he was naturally good at, just as a natural
mathematician goes into engineering. They do not wish to be "role
models" and claim no special moral status, so why should their private
lives be subjected to such public scrutiny? Individuals who happen to be
public figures still deserve the same rights to privacy as the rest of us;
simply because they may have a degree of fame does not make them fair-game.
|
0 Comments