US media "ethics free" on public vs private life?

Forums: Media, Usa, Philosophy, Ethics, Privacy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here is a view from the antipodes on the habits of the US media re politician's private lives. (A path I very much fear, on recent, evidence, that the Oz media may show some signs of following)

(Full article )

What do you think of this trend? What of a politician's private life might reasonably and ethically be seen as part of the public's legitimate concern?

What are your criteria for making this decision?

Please - do NOT make this a chance yet again to bash Clinton or Bush!!!!

Andrew Sullivan: Ethics-free media rips off the fig leaves

July 05, 2004
PERHAPS the most enduring legacy of the Clinton years in American public life is the disappearance of any privacy. There is nothing in a politician's private life that isn't now fodder for mainstream journalism.

Legal, consensual, private activity, fantasies or feelings, even within a faithful marriage ? it's all fair game. Forget the old strictures about reporting only on adultery or hypocrisy or on public legal proceedings. And during this election cycle, things have just become sleazier; Democrat candidate John Kerry might become the victim.

The big fat precedent for another assault on the private life of a politician occurred in that bastion of ethical propriety, Chicago. A charismatic, handsome, even sexy Republican won the primary for the vacant Illinois Senate seat. Trouble is, this Republican, one Jack Ryan, once had a high-profile marriage to a stunning television star, Jeri Ryan ? a marriage that ended in a not-so-blissful divorce.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 7,319 • Replies: 30

No top replies

Private life is becoming an outmoded concept for people in the public eye. Unfortunately, this may be part of the emerging global village. We don't necessarily know our neighbors--but we're avid for news of shenanigans in high places.

0 Replies

I was a journalism major trained in the 1950's ethics for journalism. Some ethics were spelled out and explained so there was no possibility of misunderstanding, and and woe to the reporter who violated these in any way even writing for the campus newspaper. Other ethics were included in a concept of 'absence of malice' that was less easily defined but which we all understood nonetheless. Again, woe to the reporter who violated this concept.

The bottom line was that a news story could include only personal information that was essential to the story. For instance it could be reported that Jack Kennedy declined to go horseback riding because of a chronic back problem. Otherwise it would be improper to mention the president's bad back and it just wasn't done. Reporters of course knew that President Roosevelt was in a wheelchair but photographers discretely avoided taking pictures showing the wheelchair and it is difficult to find any mention of it in reporting in the 1940's. Roosevelt's presumed and Kennedy's known infidelities were of course known to the Press Corps but you never saw that in the newspaper or on the evening news.

It would fair game to note a divorce in a candidate's resume but the details of a divorce were off limits.

First and foremost whatever was reported had to be verified beyond any doubt and even then it had to meet the 'absence of malice' test: is this information necessary to the story or is it simply to titillate, to embarrass, or to hurt the subject of the story? If it added nothing to the story and could hurt the person or damage his/her reputation, it was not printed.

If I could turn back the clock on this one issues, I would return to those ethical standards for journalism.

0 Replies

Even in the early 70's, when I studied journalism, it has been the same here as Foxfyre posted above - even stricter..

We seem to be on the same way by now, as you down under, dlowan.

0 Replies

That is very interesting, Fox.

We are not there yet, not by a long shot, Walter - but this looks like being a dirty election. I hope all parties withdraw to the barricades FAST - 'tis mutually assured destruction - and would be a precipitous fall in the conduct of Oz public life, in my opinion.

0 Replies

And well stated ethical guidelines.

I wonder how the Chicago paper would defend its actions, if challenged?

Has the ethical code actually formally been changed, do you know, Fox - or has it just slipped?

0 Replies

The rational for colorful detail of the private lives of public people is that the public has a right to know.

0 Replies

I don't know the answer, I'm curious -- did Kennedy and Roosevelt and such extoll family values, sanctity of marriage, etc.?

Because I see that as being part of how this stuff becomes news (though it goes well beyond what is necessary) -- highlighting hypocrisy in politician's political stances vs. their private lives, do what I say, not what I do. Strom Thurman comes to mind, but also a slew of quite strident "family values" types whose own conduct is most unbecoming.

0 Replies

When I step in the voting booth, I'm not casting my vote for a demi-deity, but for a public servant.

I have a Right-To-Know anything that reflects on a candidate's ability to serve. I am not entitled to salacious tidbits about a candidate's private life.

0 Replies

I cannot recall such a thing from Kennedy - though, of course, he felt the pressure to have a wife etc.

Roosevelt? I don't know. Given his domestic habits and long extra-marital relationship, I would hope not!

0 Replies

But of course both did. That's what national leaders do--extol the virtues and values of the citizenry. And there's nothing wrong with that. If we have chosen not to bite the doughnut ourselves, it does not negate the fact that it is sweet. The only criticism should be when we claim virtues that we do not possess.

Dlowan asks if the (journalism) ethical code has changed or just slipped. I think it just sort of dissolved in the wake of the anti-establishment revolution of the 60's and 70's--that was the first generation to essentially reject the values of their parents. And it is the progeny of that generation that is today's meda. While most of us grew up and out of it and matured, those who stayed in the media so often never did.

I myself left journalism and went to other pursuits when newsroom budgets no longer allowed for detailed research, when editors valued sensationalism and 'scoops' more than accuracy, and when it was more important to demand a grieving victim state how s'he 'felt' about a tragedy than determining the facts that caused it. I think many, maybe most of us with ethical principles did bail out. Some of those who stayed are the rare voices of reason we find in the media; the rest who stayed just didn't seem to care about it any more.

0 Replies

Fox - are you sure they did in the same sick-making way a lot of pollies do now????

0 Replies

"God, Mother and Apple Pie" goes at least back to the '50's. Glad handing, baby kissing and congratulating the virtuous people in the street goes back further.

The people in the street were also being praised for their intelligence, industry and vision.

Takes one to know one was implied all along.

0 Replies

True Noddy. And what is 'sickening' to one person is music to the ears and imminentlysatisfying to another. If one is able to shift out of a partisan mindset and slip into a purely objective veneer and listen to a few campaign speeches, watch how the language and demeanor and emphasis and content shift and change depending on the audience addressed. If the audience wants to hear family values, that's exactly what they'll get.

0 Replies

I didn't read all the responses, admittedly. I don't think anyone who presents themselves as a public figure, by choice, has the same level of privacy a working person does.

If I choose to be an actress, I want fame and the money that goes with it. So does invasion of privacy, like reporters going through your garbage to get a story. It is the same with politics. If you choose to run for any public office, expect every personal aspect of your life to be scrutinized and criticized because you always have someone running against you that wishes to discredit you, no matter what the means.

This has been a known topic for a long time. It's like winning the lottery and complaining about the taxes. Most of us never have such a shot at live. The ones that do, worked very hard for it and are extremely driven people. Privacy for these select individuals should not be above or below the law that the rest of us live by.

Anyone could find out quite a lot about me, my finances, and personal matters, by raiding my garbage cans ever week. For me, who cares! That's an easy answer, no one cares at all. I have a position of a degree of responsibility, but nothing near the magnitude of authority on others that any politician has.

Nixon should have taught politicians a lesson long ago. Use a shredder!! People that are seeking fame through talent, such as acting or music, should know what's up. It is a price they have to pay, sorry.

I do not believe they should have any privacy rights that the average citizen does not. They are not above or below the law. Rights of privacy belong to all of us, famous or not. Some make a choice to be more at risk than others and have to assume that, with chosen profession.

0 Replies

So - what effect do you think that has on politics in yeour country, Wildflower?

Are you aware of the fact that it is different in most countries?

Are you aware of the fact that it was different - even just ten years ago - in yours?

Do you believe the media acted ethically in Ryan's case?

You say:"I do not believe they should have any privacy rights that the average citizen does not. They are not above or below the law. Rights of privacy belong to all of us, famous or not. Some make a choice to be more at risk than others and have to assume that, with chosen profession."

And yet - would your sealed divorce records (if you had them) have been unsealed, and splashed across the media? For your child to deal with?

My argument is not that politcians (I am not addressing actors and such on this thread) should have MORE right to privacy than you and I - it is that they should have the same right to privacy about private matters as others - UNLESS those private matters are related to their public role.

0 Replies

I posted this already years back, from a very personal comparison between Germany and the US [A subjective comparison of Germany and the United States ]

Quote:

Germany has extremely strict privacy laws: the supreme court has acknowledged a right to "informational self-determination" and everyone storing personal data about others has to obtain consent from these persons, has to allow them access to their records, and can use the data only for the purpose they were originally collected for. The federal government and all states have privacy ombudsmen who take citizen's complaints and make sure that the privacy laws are enforced and extended where appropriate. Germans value their privacy highly and essentially everybody agrees with these laws.
So do I, and it is absolutely frightening to me how privacy rights are constantly violated in the US. Credit card companies keep databases about your purchases and sell the information; supermarkets issue frequent-buyer cards in order to track your preferences; if you buy a TV set in an electronics store, they ask for your name and address; the post office sells information about who moved where; the Internet set-top box WebTV dials up Microsoft every night to upload information about your web surfing habits, automatic face recognition cameras are used in sports arenas and casinos, surveillance cameras are common in public city areas etc. etc.

The US has very strong access-to-information laws. If the government collected it, and it does not affect vital national interests, then you can file a request to see it. Emails of the president, phone bills of the governor, lists of all issued driver's licenses: everything is fair game. These laws enjoy wide public support.

Interestingly, neither is privacy a big issue in the US nor is access to information a topic in Germany. Clearly, the two issues are opposite ends of a spectrum - you can't have both at the same time. Maybe this difference between the countries is a symptom of the fact that Germans tend to distrust big business, while Americans tend to distrust big government. Quite predictably, the consequence is that corporations are more powerful and government is less powerful in the US than in Germany. When Americans need a quick example of government gone bad, German history serves well; when Germans need a quick example of corporate excesses, American businesses are often used.

0 Replies

As usual, a very interesting contribution!

And - I admire American's right to access PUBLIC information.

I would not support their right to access PRIVATE emails etc. - unless they were evidence of wrongdoing germane to a person's performance of public duties - or criminal in nature.

As for violating Family Court confidentiality!!!! (ALL family court records here are confidential - I have never heard of this "sealing") - my ears are still spinning.

0 Replies

Personally I think family court records should be confidential in the U.S. to protect the children if for no other reason. It never occurred to me that they were not until this Ryan flap came to the forefront. I think the principals in the divorce might voluntarily release them to whomever; but I don't think the records should be open for perusal by just whomever. I don't see this as a big government issue but rather as simple common sense.

Unfortunately, not much government happens based purely on common sense anymore. At least it doesn't here.

0 Replies

Back during the Clinton fiasco, my friend said "I don't want a dude who cheats on his wife running my country."

At first I thought he was just being conservative, closed minded, etc.

But I thought about it, and ended up agreeing with him.

They should be held to high standards, and know that "public office" does include the word "public."

However, I think things like divorce records should be kept private. Anyone who has been through a divorce knows the pain it involves. There is no reason for the public to know that information, unless a serious crime was involved.

0 Replies

US media "ethics free" on public vs private life?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know