Media Responsibility and the Privacy of Public Personalities - Research Paper Example

?Media Responsibility and the Privacy of Public Personalities Few people can forget the story of Anthony Wiener, the bright young lawmaker from New York who was on his way to political greatness. He was articulate, media-savvy and was espousing a modern brand of politics that many people shared. One fateful day, he sent a young woman a picture of his penis via Twitter – apparently not an unfortunate accident, he had been carrying on improper correspondence with this woman and several other women for a period of time. The media was quick to jump on the scoop. Soon, the women were being interviewed by the tabloids, Anthony Wiener’s wife was being deluged by reporters, their family peace was shattered. Everywhere, one sees stories of the media trying to outscoop each other in scraping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, and extracting information about, or even against celebrities, in order to profit. They then invoke the blanket right of press freedom and the Constitutional guarantee of free expression in order to absolve themselves from liability. Those who say that the media should be restrained give several examples of media irresponsibility. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to dispute examples of not only celebrities, but also ordinary people whose lives have been thrown apart by severe media incursions. Nothing is sacred anymore, privacy has become a value of the past. Even the most private confines of one’s home can become fodder for tomorrow’s newspapers. As a result, celebrity endorsements can be lost (Gorman 1247). With Twitter and other social networking sites, it has become even worse. Everyone is a journalist, and it becomes easier for professional journalists to zero in on what is newsworthy. As stated by Felcher and Rubin (1577), this kind of publicity against real people can “disrupt their lives, hurt their feelings, or decrease their ability to profit from their names, likeness or other attributes.” However, this paper will argue that there are more disadvantages than advantages when one censors the media. Indeed, the costs of curtailing free speech outweigh the putative benefits of reining in abusive journalists and protecting the privacy of celebrities. This paper will talk about this on three levels. Firstly, this paper will consider it from the Constitutional principle of free speech, arguing that the freedom of expression of the press is one of the bedrocks of a thriving democracy. Secondly, it will argue that the media still remains to be one of the potent mechanisms against abusive public officials and that the risks of public officials abusing their office have greater damage on society than media professionals who abuse their profession. Finally, it will argue that there are corrective remedies to curb media wrongdoing that do not have to involve outright censorship. Free speech as the bedrock of democracy and human rights Free speech remains to be one of the firmest firmaments of democracy. It is usually the first to be taken away when a dictator wants to install himself into power as a free and healthy press is an important indicator of a free and healthy republic. According to Ira Glasser, who was the director of the American Civil Liberties Union, people often fail to realize that when government regulates speech, panoply of First Amendment issues comes to the fore. He states: “Liberals and Democrats have been the chief offenders in this scenario, favoring equity in the abstract but never seeing how the particular reforms they advocated made the problems they wished to remedy worse, and never seeing that giving the government the authority” (2). Free speech is not always the easiest thing to defend. In fact, in many circumstances, our gut tells us that it should be suppressed in favor of some other social policy. An example of this is the notorious case of Citizens United. By way of brief background, the case takes root in 2008 when a non-profit corporation, Citizens United, released a documentary entitled “Hillary” that was made to target the former Senator who was at the time vying for the nomination of the Democrats. The Supreme Court ruled that electioneering communications fell under the protective ambit of the First Amendment. The cornerstone of the decision was a deep and uncompromising adherence to free speech. Political speech, the decision reminds us, “is indispensable to decision making in a society, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.” It also states that “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.” It then proceeded to say that corporations and human beings both have a right to free speech that the government is dutybound to protect. Said Justice Kennedy, “Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech.” In like manner, despite the special advantages of the media, and, in fact, despite the vulture-like qualities of some members of the media, it does not suffice to allow laws that would have to effect of curtailing their speech. It is not incumbent upon us to determine who deserves free speech. We are not called upon to make choices, or to espouse a limited application of otherwise inalienable human rights. We are called upon to preserve human rights, and work against the processes and dynamics that stay human rights. The right of free speech and dissent are the backbone of any democratic society. The media as check against errant public officials Bollinger (1) has suggested that the US Supreme Court has had two strands of though with regard to censorship of media. To quote, “On the one hand, the Supreme Court has accorded the print media virtually complete constitutional protection from attempts by government to impose affirmative controls such as access regulation. On the other hand, the Court has held affirmative regulation of the broadcast media to be constitutionally permissible, and has even suggested that it may be constitutionally compelled.” Given these two strands of thought, what is the proper route to follow? I argue that the media still remains to be one of the most formidable mechanisms against a corrupted and inefficient government. It allows the public to check on the excesses of public officials and make sure that those they voted for into positions of power continue to deliver the public service that is expected of them and adhere to high ethical standards. Even those who had not been voted into office but command high respect, such as Tiger Woods, must be included. As public figures who earn their livelihood from the public, they must be accountable to them. From a Western libertarian point of view, if one compares the violation to the newspaper and the violation to the public officials in the invasion of their privacy or if drivel is written against them, the right against censorship and prior restraint appears to be more serious than the right to be left alone or the right “not be mocked.” Mocking words are but manifestations of ideas – ill-formed ideas, yes, but ideas nonetheless – that are best refuted by better ideas in a free market of thought and discourse. Censorship, on the other hand, especially if state-sponsored, is a more chilling malady that does not bode well for robust democratic institutions. Of course, the most ideal solution would be to exercise restraint and sensitivity in one’s work – always taking into account the sensitivities of everyone in the community, even those who occupy positions of power. Enough check and balance mechanisms I argue lastly that there are enough check and balance mechanisms to ensure that the media do not go overboard. Celebrities have successfully taken our restraining orders in the past against media reporters who have violated other laws. An example of this is when reporters are caught in their private properties, they can be made liable for trespassing. There are also a slew of anti-stalking laws that can rightly be availed of. The individuals can also take refuge in the principles of media such as their right to air their side, or the responsibility of the media to air both sides of the story. Celebrities must avail of these mechanisms first and use censorship as a last resort. Also, the media also knows that there are libel laws that can be used against them if their media reports are patently malicious. Conclusion This paper made three points. The first is that freedom of the press is one of the most stable bedrocks in a democratic society and it is there to ensure our hard fought freedoms. Censoring the media renders this freedom illusory. The second is that the damage to the public of corrupted and errant public officials is much greater than the danger to them of an irresponsible media. The third is that there are enough checks and balances to ensure media regulation. In sum, as hateful and as petty as the tabloid media can be, confronting them is perhaps a less daunting task than perhaps citizens living in Iran, North Korea or other non-democratic states where the media is completely state-controlled. We must cherish our hard-fought freedoms and always strive for their protection. Works Cited Bollinger Jr., Lee C. “Freedom of the Press and Public Access: Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media.” Michigan Law Review 75 (1976): 1-21. Print. Felcher, Peter L., and Edward L. Rubin. “Privacy, Publicity and the Portrayal of Real People in the Media,” Yale Law Journal 88 (1979): 1577. Print. Glasser, Ira. “Understanding the Citizens United Ruling.” Huffington Post: Classic. 2010. Web. 25 July 2012. Gorman, Claire E. “Publicity and Privacy Rights: Evening Out the Playing Field for Celebrities and Private Citizens in the Modern Game of Mass Media,” De Paul Law Review 53 (2004): 1247. Print. Read More