1
   

Public figures should expect to lose some of their privacy

 
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 08:29 pm
Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy.

If you are ambitious to participate in political activities and make yourself a successful statesman, if you are good at singing or performance and possess the potential to be a good singer or a movie or television star, or if you are a famous athlete, you should exercise great caution on your financial affairs, love story, marriage, and even the cultivation of your children, all aspects in your personal life, because to be aforementioned kinds of people makes you a public figure, and being a public figure means you get a conspicuous target painted on your back. As a public figure, you should expect that you will lose at least some of privacy, not because you are willing to do so, nor because you have the obligation to the society to do so, but only because you are public figure, and being a public figure, you have no method to prevent the curiosity of the public and the omnipresence of the journalists' exploration.

Many people wander why the masses are so interested in the private lives of those in high profile positions. From my point of view, there are several reasons for this. Some people collect and spread private information of public figures only for fun, they have too much spear time and no serious interests, they talk about such information to kill time, and gain admiration form those who have the same habit with them by showing how much they know about this. Another kind of people admire the life of high profile, wealthy, comfortable, behaving as the limelight, they want to know the detail of the celebrities' private lives to mime them and make themselves closer to the feeling of that kind of life. Still another kind of people envy the reputation and wealth of the celebrities, they need some scandals or other kind or negative information in their privacy to make themselves feel better. In fact, there are a variety of emotional desires in the depth of human mentality urging people to forage/ hunt for the information about the celebrities' privacy, each of which embodies one kind of human defects.

To cater such kind of appetite of the masses, the press……to search for all-to-detailed material about the private life of public figures. The ultimate purpose of the press to do so is to extend the reader population of there publications and television programs, so as to earn more money. Public figures may easily escape from the disturbance of single person of their fans or opponents, but they would never succeed to avoid/evade the detection/.exploration of the ubiquitous journalists fueled/motivated by money. Journalists serving for tabloid would report about your real estate changes, your travel life, your favorite music, attire, and even about which school you selected for you son to study in, all aspects of you private life, even more detail than what you and your family know, and the worse is they also concoct and spread rumors and scandals about celebrities.

Is all of these appropriate? When the daughter of ex-president who was still study in university was chased by the press, some one said that's immoral. Yes, it is immoral, but not illegal. The press possess the most powerful aegis, i.e. the first amendment of the constitution and the principles of free speech and the freedom of the press. And as showed in the case several years ago, the district court judge said as a public figure, you should provide more accurate proof to show the misrepresentative report about him or her is really out of malice in a libel sue, which make celebrities harder to win the such kind of lawsuits. Eventually, public figures are in a condition that have no means by which to protect themselves against the torture caused by the press.

Therefore, if you seek a public role you should decided to cede some of your privacy, you could not defeat the effort of the press to seek information about your private life, unless when most people in the society have come to be public figures and lost the interests in the celebrities. Before that occurs, those in high profile positions could do nothing but keep clean in there personal lives, anyway, this is the appropriate function of the press to cast a pressure making the celebrities drawback from wrongdoing.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,969 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 10:38 pm
Yes, public figures should expect to lose SOME of their privacy, but how much? Isn't there a line that the paparazzi should not cross?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 12:09 am
I sure think so.

The gossip industry appals me.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 09:09 pm
Institutionalized voyeurism, that's what it is. And with respect to the readers of tabloids they don't even care if the gossip is true or not.
Speaking of voyeurs, have you heard the paraphrase?: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is voyeur."
0 Replies
 
Ameth A Morgana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2004 10:26 pm
I'd like an American BBCish organization. The BBC is funded by the government - it would be nice to see American media take a more valid and (hopefully) professional position in things - rather then all these different spins on the same thing.

Anyway - politicians choose their own (usually) venal lifestyles; I'd chose, their insecurity over their privacy (most things tip one way or the other) just because they need to be scrutinized anyway.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 02:05 pm
Celebrities - certainly. They don't take their public positions for anything except greed, and love of being in front of the public eye. That's what they asked for, they should get it.

Politicians, probably not. Think about it. If politicians were as paparazzied as the celebrities, than eventually only celebrities would be politicians. And who wants that? Politicians are there not because they're attention whores but because they are applying for a job. And as long as nothing they do interferes with their ability to do their job, it shouldn't matter. We have laws like this about civilian jobs, but not political ones. Why? If we hired people based on the same things we elected them for, every privacy act in the country would fly through the window, as well as every anti-descrimination act, including the ADA.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Public figures should expect to lose some of their privacy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/13/2024 at 11:30:10