Privacy for public figures
0
Lil'von's topic along with a recent headline from the USA Today (I believe) made me ponder the question.
"What degree of privacy should public figures reasonably expect?"
This runs the whole array from "private" matters such as the scandal involving Palin's daughter to "public" matters such as who visited which politician when, and why.
So, how much privacy should public figures be given and why?
Edit: This question applies to politicians, athletes, celebrities,etc
"What degree of privacy should public figures reasonably expect?"
This runs the whole array from "private" matters such as the scandal involving Palin's daughter to "public" matters such as who visited which politician when, and why.
So, how much privacy should public figures be given and why?
Edit: This question applies to politicians, athletes, celebrities,etc
0
If their name's on the ballot and our tax dollars are paying for them: I want a camera on them constantly except when they are in the bathroom/shower stall or being intimate with their significant other. I trust politicians as far as they can throw me (I'm a big dude).
0
I think the amount of privacy celebrities and politicians get should be reversed (as there are sometimes people actually looking through celebrities trashcans for shit). If 24 hour news channels have to talk about some trivial bullshit all day long it would be nice if it was at least something to do with anything as opposed to sometimes acting like they work for tabloids.
0
For politicians/leaders, none. Everything they do must be transparent, no matter how humiliating. Politician X approved the contract with Company A and not Company B? Better believe it that I'd want to know if there is any connection between company A and Politician X, even if its personal.
The thing here is that the personal life of a leader might very well affect my own personal life, so yeah, I deserve know about it.
For everyone else, shoot the paparazi. I don't care that Tiger Woods can't keep it in his pants, and neither should anyone who isn't involved.
The thing here is that the personal life of a leader might very well affect my own personal life, so yeah, I deserve know about it.
For everyone else, shoot the paparazi. I don't care that Tiger Woods can't keep it in his pants, and neither should anyone who isn't involved.
0
I'll admit that I'm greatly bothered by the way privacy is handled in the anglo-american tradition (in both the U.K. with its exceptionally vicious tabloids and the U.S. with their special knack for ridiculous moral outrage). This includes the way the private life of public figures is routinely thrown to the dogs.
I think what anyone does in private ought to be taboo for the media; in the case of public figures that should apply so long as it does not compromise what they do in office.
For example, if a high-ranking police officer privately smuggles cocaine, that still ought to be fair game for reportage.
If that same officer privately has an affair with her janitor’s parrot, that ought to be taboo for the media, and nobody except for the officer, her partner, the janitor, or the parrot should have a say in it.
One case where I was personally torn is that of Berlusconi. For those not familiar with the story, [the prime minister of Italy] Silvio Berlusconi was recently outed by a call-girl to have had long-standing relations with high class prostitutes, and possibly the then-underage kid of one of his protégés. The ensuing media blitz was almost as gigantic as that when his ties to the mafia emerged – was it right for the media to latch onto the fact that the prime minister cohabits with prostitutes?
Normally – my personal opinion of Berlusconi aside – I would say, no. However, Berlusconi himself introduced a bill that outlaws sexual relations with prostitutes, to ingratiate himself with the Catholic Church. In this case, I concluded that reportage ought to be allowed, because it compromises his office – he is routinely violating the very same laws he so fervently campaigned for.
I think what anyone does in private ought to be taboo for the media; in the case of public figures that should apply so long as it does not compromise what they do in office.
For example, if a high-ranking police officer privately smuggles cocaine, that still ought to be fair game for reportage.
If that same officer privately has an affair with her janitor’s parrot, that ought to be taboo for the media, and nobody except for the officer, her partner, the janitor, or the parrot should have a say in it.
One case where I was personally torn is that of Berlusconi. For those not familiar with the story, [the prime minister of Italy] Silvio Berlusconi was recently outed by a call-girl to have had long-standing relations with high class prostitutes, and possibly the then-underage kid of one of his protégés. The ensuing media blitz was almost as gigantic as that when his ties to the mafia emerged – was it right for the media to latch onto the fact that the prime minister cohabits with prostitutes?
Normally – my personal opinion of Berlusconi aside – I would say, no. However, Berlusconi himself introduced a bill that outlaws sexual relations with prostitutes, to ingratiate himself with the Catholic Church. In this case, I concluded that reportage ought to be allowed, because it compromises his office – he is routinely violating the very same laws he so fervently campaigned for.
0
The fact that people are so fixated on the daily lives of celebrates is a source of constant wonder for me. I mean, these are people whose sole job in life is to try and act well in made up scenarios so we can kill 2-3 hours in a day. Why anyone would care if Brad Pitt is having crazy man sex with a giant Mexican boggles my mind. Does that fact change the way Brad Pitt acts in movies? No. So why the hell would and want to know about it?
It all comes down to people wanting to feel good about themselves. If they can look at a newspaper or a magazine and see the flaws of someone famous then they can feel better about their own flaws.
It all comes down to people wanting to feel good about themselves. If they can look at a newspaper or a magazine and see the flaws of someone famous then they can feel better about their own flaws.
0
The Queen of the United Kingdom just ordered this.
And I support her in that fact. Pollies, yes keep an eye on them. Famous people and people born into those roles, they deserve privacy.
And I support her in that fact. Pollies, yes keep an eye on them. Famous people and people born into those roles, they deserve privacy.
0
CPOK wrote...
The Queen of the United Kingdom just ordered this.And I support her in that fact. Pollies, yes keep an eye on them. Famous people and people born into those roles, they deserve privacy.
Seconded, they do deserve privacy and what the press does is just keep disturbing them to hell.
0
When it comes to known figures in the political world: Except for their private affairs (i.e. wifes, lovers and maybe their hobbies) - hobbies being relative because if we have to pay for them I do care, everything should be kept an eye on. I do not want to vote for someone who promises to watch how the taxes are used and than goes and rents out a club for his / her daughters 18'th birthday with the same taxpayer €.
In my opinion, if you want to stand on the stage, you have to be aware that the attention will be on you, even if you leave the stage as now people know who you are.
In my opinion, if you want to stand on the stage, you have to be aware that the attention will be on you, even if you leave the stage as now people know who you are.