Do the press have the right to expose the private lives of either ‘ordinary’ people or public figures?
In the eyes of the ‘ordinary’ person celebrities are seen as ‘public property’. Celebrities are role models to ‘ordinary’ people therefore we want to know all about them and keep up to date with both their public careers and their private lives. The separation of public life and private life has broken down. The two seem to go hand in hand; hypothetically, if a celebrity was seen taking drugs, it would be in the public interest to expose him, as he would be failing at being a good role model to the ‘ordinary’ person. ‘Little about the lives of public people is sacred in the eyes of the law. The fact that they have chosen to inject themselves into the public arena suggest a willingness to undergo rigorous scrutiny and to suffer the consequences of embarrassing revelations.’[1] Unless he was seen to be taking drugs in public, he would have to have been followed for a journalist to have been aware of this story. This is a prime example of the intrusion of privacy. Celebrities are constantly being followed by the paparazzi for photographs and journalists for stories, both of whom are consequently intruding into private lives. ‘Some invasion of privacy is essential to the news-gathering process and a well-informed public. But the dilemma arises in deciding where to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable media conduct.’[2] Journalists are left to make up their own mind on what they should and shouldn’t report, being careful to steer away from being sued. The National Union of Journalists Code of Conducts states ‘A journalist shall do nothing which entails intrusion into anybody’s private life, grief or distress, subject to justification by overriding considerations of the public interest.’[3]
With newspapers and magazines today it would seem that celebrities have no control over their own lives anymore as journalists are continuously exposing every detail of their private lives. The public want to know about the most intimate details about the private lives of celebrities. Sex, relationships and social activities are the aspects of a celebrity’s life the public are the most curious about. This raises the question by Louis Alvin Day; ‘should such subjects of public curiosity have any expectations of privacy in public places?’[4]
Personal links and private emotions of celebrities are being made public. There are lots of moral issues which need to be considered by a journalist when reporting on the private life of a celebrity. Moral boundaries are regularly crossed when it comes to these situations. ‘Privacy can protect us from the scorn and ridicule by others. In a society in which there is still intolerance of some human tragedies, lifestyles and unorthodox behaviours, no one wants to be shamed.’[5]
‘The more others know about us, the less powerful we become in controlling our own destiny.’[6] This statement is true in relation to the private lives of Jay-Z and Beyoncé Knowles. The celebrity couple have from day one remained tight-lipped out their relationship and Beyoncé has stated that she believes that not publicly discussing their relationship has helped them stay strong. The pair were listed as a power couple on Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2006. They prove that it is possible to keep their private lives private and survive the pressure of journalists and the paparazzi. They have controlled their own personal life by keeping the details of their relationship for themselves. This has made them stronger as a couple and more inspirational to the ‘ordinary’ person. ‘The ability to maintain the confidentiality of personal information is the hallmark of an autonomous individual.’[7] This too is accurate of Beyonce, she is a more powerful person because of her ability to keep her private life private.
The private lives of celebrities have become entertainment to the public, Google News, for example, has an Entertainment News section that is dedicated to celebrity gossip which is primarily to do with the celebrities love lives and other personal issues. ‘Privacy produces a mechanism by which we can control our reputations. “Who cares what others think?” is a common refrain, but the fact is, we do care.’[8]
Celebrities are regularly accused of using the press to their advantage in terms of boosting their profile when it suits them, but isn’t this what being a celebrity is all about? ‘Journalists argue that public figures “use” the media for their own publicity purposes and are being disingenuous in complaining about the press’s relentless pursuit of a story.’[9] Take Katie Price for example. Celebrities such as Katie Price have their everyday lives and experiences noted by journalists and sold to newspapers. Katie has recently quit the reality TV show ‘I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here’ amid rumours that she is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Ex glamour model, Katie Price is used to being in the public eye; she has been followed by the press all of her adult life. She met and fell in love with her ex-husband Peter Andre on the show ‘I’m a Celebrity’; they were watched by the public via their documentary ‘Katie and Peter.’ When they married, the wedding was broadcast to the nation and even the births of their two children were filmed. They went on to have a very public divorce. Every part of their life together was documented. Despite being watched so closely, Katie knows how to use the press to her advantage. She is lets paparazzi and journalists follow her everywhere, yet she will not be seen as weak and vulnerable.
‘Journalists sometimes forget they are reporting on human beings.’[10] The public also tend to forget that celebrities are human beings. Celebrities are regularly on melt down in front of the cameras, Britney Spears is an extreme example of what can happen when celebrities are pushed to the limit emotionally, and not to mention the case of Princess Diana. Should people profit from other peoples’ troubles/distress? Is there a privacy line which is crossed if individuals’ problems are given wide spread publicity? ‘Most of us value privacy, and yet we are ambivalent about how we should retain and much we should relinquish.’[11] If we value our own privacy, then why aren’t we able to value that of a celebrity?
Celebrities have to be exceptionally careful of who they trust as their reputations can be destroyed instantly by their friends and family and other ‘ordinary’ people selling stories to newspapers. Kiss-n-tell stories, for example can cause unnecessary heartache and hurt to celebrities all in the name of money.
Public lives of ‘ordinary’ people are being shown on TV shows such as ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’. ‘Ordinary’ people, usually the working class are having their lives exposed on national television. These people willingly appear on the show and openly discuss their private lives and problems in return for help from a professional team of councillors and social workers. This show is generally perceived as a circus, and the guests become a laughing stock to the nation, all in the name of entertainment. Again, we forget that these people are human beings, and these are problems that these people have to live with on a day-to-day basis. This concept can be viewed as an intrusion of privacy, as it stars guests who lack financial and legal resources necessary to regulate the intrusion, whereas the rich and powerful celebrities can pay their way out of these kinds of situations.
‘Big Brother’ is a concept where the public watch ‘real’ people for the purpose of entertainment. The contestants every movement is filmed, even the bathroom and the toilet have cameras to ensure that there is no room in the house that is private. When in the ‘Big Brother’ house privacy is devalued, such as contestants becoming close, or getting intimate, the programmes ratings always go up. Does this prove that this is what the public want to watch? Does seeing others make fools of themselves make the public feel better about themselves?
Shows such as these two have been criticised for taking away the dignity of these people; but on the other hand, these people know what they are signing up for, and have to sign contracts and documents before they enter the house. So technically they are giving up their right to privacy, just as it would seem a celebrity does when they become ‘public property’.
When we socialise with our friends we filter the information we give accordingly. ‘Friendship is partly a matter of how much we are prepared to reveal about our private selves to another, as opposed to what we are indiscriminately prepared for everyone to know about us.’[12]
In terms of privacy, it is always being intruded, the ‘ordinary’ person is now being watched on a day to day basis, much like a celebrity and a lot like in the Big Brother house only we have no choice on what information is given out. Surveillance cameras watch a person’s every move in the street, the use of credit and debit cards make it easy to see a person’s spending habits and cookies on the internet are able to trace web movement. All of these, although they are primarily to protect us, are intruding in our own private lives as we have no say in such information being used in this way, we just learn to accept it.
Social networking sites such as Myspace, Bebo and Facebook are prime examples of the invasion of privacy; all sorts of people have access to the private information which is published on these sites. Users of Facebook and other social networking websites willingly upload and publish personal information and private photographs onto such sites. Although it may be there for friends and family to see and they can control who has access to certain information they are still making their private information readily available for cybercriminals. ‘These guys steal an individual’s profile, then email everyone in their contacts with a link and a subject heading like ‘check this out’. You trust the email because it’s from your friend. So you click on the link and before you know it all your security information has been stolen.’[13]
How much we are willing to reveal about ourselves defines our identity. Our openness or coyness about our private lives tells us what kind of person we are. ‘The protection offered by the private sphere enables us to test and develop our identity and character as a person.’ [14] Every person deserves the right to privacy whether they’re a celebrity or an ‘ordinary’ person. The person’s status determines how much privacy they actually need, but they deserve it nonetheless.
Bibliography
Matthew Kieran. Media Ethics. (1997) Praeger Publishers.
Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000)
Tony Harcup. The Ethicical Journalist. (2007) Sage Publications.
[1] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 126.
[2] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 121.
[3] Tony Harcup. The Ethicical Journalist. (2007) Sage Publications. Pg.151.
[4] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 127.
[5] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 122.
[6] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 123.
[7] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 122.
[8] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 123.
[9] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 127.
[10] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 130.
[11] Louis Alvin Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. (2000) Pg. 121.
[12] Matthew Kieran. Media Ethics. (1997) Praeger Publishers. Pg. 74.
[13] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6683004/Facebook-and-Twitter-increasingly-a-target-for-hackers.html
[14] Matthew Kieran. Media Ethics. (1997) Praeger Publishers. Pg. 75.
Mrs Laura Faulkner 