The Media and the Privacy of Public Figures - Essay Example

The Media and the Privacy of Public Figures Media’s right to freedom of expression has been a bone of contention for decades when it comes to reporting on the private lives of public figures. Many people believe that media should cover private lives of all public figures such as politicians, sports personalities and entertainers as these personalities are perceived as role models. However, naysayers believe that media should not interfere with the private lives of any individual under any circumstance. The intensity of the issue on the grounds of several recent incidents suggest that the media’s right to freedom of expression should be defended when at the same time media is prevented from intruding into people’s private affairs. To begin with, everyone regardless of their social status has the right to privacy. However, celebrities and politicians are often deprived of the right to private life. Media is highly eager to explore every minute detail of famous individuals’ private life. The media, in a sense, reflects the curiosity of the public, and this inquisitiveness makes troubles in the celebrities’ life. There are several instances when the media’s interference ruined the lives of many public figures. The death of Princess Diana is alleged to have occurred while she was trying to escape from the paparazzi that were following her. Journalism that endangers the career and life of any person can never be allowed. Individuals must be given the freedom to enjoy their privacy without anybody’s interference or interruption. The imprudent techniques of the paparazzi must severely be criticized as it encroach the privacy rights of public figures as their intension is nothing other than cheap popularity. This shows that the press can be given freedom only to inform the public about the matters of public interest. Public figures should have privacy rights in every aspect. However, the lawful rights alone will not meet this objective. Media’s right to freedom of expression and privacy of celebrities have to be re-defined. And, this involves setting some ethical parameters in this regard. To illustrate, public figures including politicians and celebrities must be allowed complete freedom for their privacy in their personal life. But in their pubic life there can be some restrictions as to bring transparency in their dealings. This means there should be a clear bifurcation between the private life and public life of the celebrities and politicians. It is important to evaluate the influence of media on people today. Media today is omni-powerful and omnipresent. It has the power to alter people’s perceptions of life and events. In other words, what media portrays influences people’s ideas and believes to a large extent. What media shows as the image of a hero is the epitome of public figure for a considerable proportion of people in today’s society. According to Horkheimer and Adorno (1993), all cultural products and even human beings have become mere commodities due to the unwanted levels of emphasis given to mass marketing. The ultimate impact of this ‘culture industry’ according to the proponents of this theory is that it makes people passive victims and manipulates them into mindlessly consuming commodities. According to them, “Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part”; and this system allows people to think only in terms of means and ends as all reason has become instrumental rationality and they are made into commodities to retail (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1993). Even movies and radio agree that they are no longer art but business in aspects. And, this business “is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce” (Ibid). They like to be called industries and the income of people at the top reveals that the finished products they sell have little social utility. The logic of a work and that of a social system is no more a matter of discussion. Also talented performers are often deprived of the opportunities once they refuse to be the integral part of the system. In such situations the privacy of the very celebrities are sold by the media. In this context, it is important to define what privacy is. By privacy we mean the expectation that our top secret personal information that is disclosed in a completely private place will not be exposed to the public. But the attention of media to the public figures has made them lose their privacy concerning both private as well as public life. Like the private individuals, the celebrities are also entitled to have the same right of privacy which is extended to all. According to Nordhaus (1999), the main idea of formulating the right of privacy was to safeguard the public figures against probable invasions such as intrusion in to solitude, public exposé of private facts, representation in a false light, and commercial exploitation of a person’s name; but in practice the public figures lack this right and tend to have a tough time recovering from the assault they face on their privacy as compared to private individuals (Ibid). This shows their high exposure to media in terms of privacy. Privacy is the right of each human being. Trespassing one’s right cannot be entertained as it paves the way for total disorder in individual life. The reason why people become inquisitive about the celebrities’ life is that people want to follow their ways of life and way of thinking as part of their dreams coming true. But learning from eminent personalities should be with their consent. The media must be ready to accept the individuality of the public figures and draw a boundary between their public and private life. While tracing their public life, they must be set free in their private life. The earnest approach of the media to make their business among the audience should be regulated for the individual and social well-being. Concerned authorities should ensure the lawfulness of media works and update the programs to eliminate all possible threats to individual privacy. However, as Newburn (2007, p.55) states, ‘new legislation causes new offences which did not exist before’; and subsequently the crime recording becomes rather complex task. Despite all regulations, commercial media misuse the loops in the law to present the events in the lives of celebrities in the most profitable way. A few facts have to be mentioned to support the argument. In the affairs of public figures, the media take exceeding initiations to publish the news with terrific enthusiasm. Even when the matter is simple or normal by its nature, media take it for an unusual thing and present with the best blend of commercial spices. This is a sort of magnification of the impractical thing, and this simply elevates its standard to public attention. This is the reason why media and crime often have complex relationships with each other. The influence of media on public is exercised in its widest form of news telecast. From among the number of news they cover, only a few are chosen to be published. Several personnel involve in arranging the news headlines in the order of their importance. Thus the news channels ultimately commercialize the news and even sell them for huge price when they involve some personal matters of celebrities. Sometimes there are biased crime stories which are aimed at improved viewer rates. There are numbers of channels sprouting each day with an aim to cash their ideas and telecast them with a little strain. The society must realize that this kind of programs damage the ethical values of the society. The news about some criminal activities, in which public figures are involved, will surely pervert many people. This attitudinal drive can demolish the human resource in any country. Media clearly targets its audience and fabricates news according to the preferences of their target groups. And, the result is that often public figures and celebrities become the victims. Audience has a very important role in media communication. Media consider audience when constructing all texts and contents. This is especially so because it is for the audience that media constructs and conveys information. In fact, the exact relation between media and audience has been the subject of debate since long. There are many factors the content producers take into consideration while producing their text. They are audience engagement, audience expectations, audience placement, and audience research etc. According to the Frankfurt School (as cited in Hanes, 2000), media is like a hypodermic syringe; and this ‘Effects’ model envisions that media injects its contents into the thoughts of the audience, and the audience accepts the thoughts, opinions, attitudes, and beliefs expressed by the media without questions. New trends of reporting tend to have this ‘effect’, and also contribute to the perversion of youth. For instance, even the cruelty of the villain is reported in a fashionable way. The reporters show their expertise to demonstrate the commercial value of crime this way. They follow the equation, ‘the more the crime; the more the cash’. The narrative style in press reports also has changed a lot. In most cases where some celebrities are involved, the crime reporter focuses much on the stimulating elements hidden in the incident and presents it in an emotionally provocative way. The term ‘privacy’ has narrow as well as wide connotations depending on its interpretation. As Daniel (2007) believes, one has to focus more on related problems rather than ignoring or inflating them. By focusing on the definition, one digresses from the idea that privacy must be respected and safeguarded and not sacrificed at the altar of security. Such trends will demoralize the society several ways. In many cases, the reporter’s words are interpreted for commercial values. In this regard, the speaker does not do anything to pacify the turmoil. Today media is responsible for the regulation of social outlook. The world knows about public figures only when the media speak about them. Therefore if the media speak well about them, they will look good. However, according to the current theory on media influence, there is a preferred embedded meaning in each text or visual. The way the meaning is decoded by each individual audience depends on various frameworks outside the text, ranging from class, gender, age, education and cultural values. So, the individual interpretation of the meaning embedded in the text varies from person to person. The positive point of this encoding/decoding theory is the acceptance of the fact that the meaning derived by the audience from a text is influenced by various other factors ranging from socio-economic frameworks, past experiences, and the context n which the media message is consumed. "Privacy and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights recognized in all major international and regional agreements and treaties" (Kevin, 2002, p. 464). In this regard, the intrusion in the name of terrorism or security cannot be an excuse for any intrusive behavior or act on the part of the state or media. Since privacy is a global issue, it cannot be put on the backburner so that counter-terrorism measures can be set in place. According to the US Privacy Act, 1974, an individual’s privacy is affected when the Federal Agencies involve in the personal information of individuals. This happens when the information is collected, processed, maintained or passed on. Any one or more of the above-mentioned points constitute an affront to the privacy of the individual. In total, modern technology poses manifold security threats in the present global conditions. The world today is a global village, and hardly any part of it can be insulated from the ill-effects of mass media. In the zeal to secure the life of even common man, his privacy is being invaded upon. Spying on an individual has become the part of media-work. Even the governmental systems stifle a person’s privacy for the perceived gain to security. It is still uncertain where to draw a line regarding the extent to which the state and media can snoop on its own people. Although spying public figures is not the remedy for any current issue, it is being employed by the organized media in several ways. Although media has the right to freedom of expression, it does not entitle them to intrude into the private lives of individuals. References Daniel, S. J. 2007. Ive Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. 44 San Diego L. Rev. 745. Hanes, P. H. 2000. “The Advantages and Limitations of a Focus on Audience in Media Studies”. [online]. Available at: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/pph9701.html [accessed 27 March 2014]. Horkheimer, M & Adorno, T. 1993. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. Continuum. 2-24. Standford University. [online] available at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DLCL/files/pdf/adorno_culture_industry.pdf [accessed 5 Nov 2013]. Kevin J. L. 2002. “Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe”. 14 Pace Intl L. Rev. 435. 14 (2). Newburn, T. 2007. Criminology. US: Willan Publishing. Nordhaus, J. E. 1999. “Celebrities Rights to Privacy: How Far Should the Paparazzi be Allowed to Go?” The Review of Litigation, 18 (2). 286-314. Read More