Invasion of Privacy: the Case of Tiger Woods - Term Paper Example

?Invasion of Privacy: The Case of Tiger Woods Introduction It is a common fact that the media is a powerful across the World, since it iscapable of influencing how everyone perceives someone or something. For example, if the media portray someone or something in a negative manner then the public’s perception is going to be altered completely and they will equally relate someone or something with negative attributes that are undesirable thereby undermining their efforts in the society. This fact among others led to the development of the public relation strategy, which is a marketing strategy that mainly aims at creating a new public image or perception on someone or something and it is commonly applied in a situation whereby the media has negatively portrayed something or someone thereby damaging its reputation. In the sports and entertainment industry there are numerous personalities who have gained international fame and therefore, any news on them is likely to receive wide viewership all across the world. Besides, the traditional journalists, the news or stories about famous personalities in the sports and entertainment industry is able to reach the mainstream media through paparazzi whom according to O’Shaughnessy, are photographers who take pictures of famous without their approval as they conduct themselves in their normal life (36). The approach with which paparazzi conduct their work has been the subject of many debates in regards to invasion of privacy by the paparazzi and the fact there is freedom of speech and right to free press that protects paparazzi. This present term paper intends to explore the issue of invasion of privacy by the paparazzi and in particular, it will discuss this issue in relation to Tiger Woods’ experience with paparazzi. In addition, the paper will also discuss other cases whereby members of the British Royal family have encountered problems with the paparazzi who in some instances have been able to invade their privacy. Paparazzi According to O’Shaughnessy, paparazzi are independent photojournalists who are not affiliated with any mainstream media house and they take their pictures as soon as any opportunity arises (35). Because of the fact that paparazzi act on their own, they remain highly unregulated and therefore, they would do anything to get a picture that will sell highly in the market including invading the privacy of individuals. Nordhaus stated that the term ‘paparazzi’ was coined from the surname of a photographer in a 1959 film produced by Federico Fellini called La Dolce Vita. However, there are various connotations that are linked with the term include persistent and annoying photographers who the nature of their work requires them to stalk famous people and go to any extent as long as they get a perfect picture (284). Nordhaus further added that paparazzi mainly target individuals who fascinate the public and the driving force for the paparazzi is the public obsession about these particular individuals, which encourages them to do their invasive acts (284). The paparazzi have received wide criticism more so in situation whereby their invasive acts cause harm or threat of harm as they go about taking photos and videos of celebrities. In such situations, paparazzi are regarded as nuisance and this has led to some countries more so in Europe to restrict the activities of paparazzi by enacting policies and curfews that restrict the invasion by the paparazzi. Nordhaus in his writings stated that the paparazzi have been accused of striping celebrities off their right to privacy. Moreover, the paparazzi were widely criticized after the death of Princess Diana since her death was partly caused by paparazzi that were chasing her; thereby contributing to a car accident that caused her death. Additionally, there have been numerous case filed against paparazzi and among the first such cases was in 1972 whereby Jacqueline Kennedy who was a First Lady of the United States sued paparazzi Ron Galella for harassment with his photo taking techniques (286-287). Right to privacy With reference to the writings by O’Shaughnessy, he stated that even thou the right of privacy is not stipulated under the constitution, the courts have in various occasion acknowledge that everyone has a right to privacy or ‘to be let alone.’ The right of privacy has been developed to protect against different forms of invasion that include public disclosure of facts that are confidential, intrusion into solitude, depiction in compromising status, and exploitation of person’s likeness or name for commercial purpose (145-148). In the case filed by Jacqueline Kennedy against Ron Galella it was noted that the right to privacy include a general right to exist without intrusion or annoyance by unwarranted parties such as the paparazzi and even shield personal and intimate moments from the public eye. O’Shaughnessy stated that the right of privacy for celebrities is usually hard to define the extent to which it applies since stories regarding the lives of celebrities attract more attention from the public and therefore, certain details concerning celebrities cannot be regarded as private matters since they attract public interest. Various justifications exists pertaining to the fact that celebrities are entitled to only a small degree of protection of their private lives and one of them is that in most occasions celebrities seek and consent to publicity. Secondly, actors, actress, politicians, entertainers, and sports personalities among others, always strive to gain global recognition and to be known all over world because this has some advantage to them, and therefore, they implicitly call for attention, which encourages the paparazzi to invade even their private moments. Thirdly, the nature of the work of most celebrities is public in nature, which in a sense waivers off their rights of privacy. However, this waiver should only be limited to the details that relate with the person’s position within the society. Fourthly, celebrities enjoy a small degree of the right of privacy because the media has the right to inform the public about issues that have public interest (167-189). O’Shaughnessy further stated that celebrities are unable to enjoy the full right of privacy because their status in the public often demands quenching the public curiosity. From a business perspective, the more talked about a celebrity is the more he or she is likely to stay relevant and thereby be able to attract more fans and even parties who want to work with him or her. Another fact that hinders celebrity from enjoying their full rights of privacy is that most of the photos taken by the paparazzi are usually taken in public places and hence such photo taking cannot be considered as invasion of privacy (212-223). The case of Tiger Woods Tiger Woods is a well-known public figure or celebrity who is at times perceived to be a company or a brand since his name is globally recognized and it has been a major source of his wealth because of the product endorsements that he receives from blue chip companies such as Nike (Ostrow). Woods has played professional golf since 1996 and his achievements have placed him as the best golfer in the world and one of the most successful and wealthiest athletes in the world. Ostrow in his writings stated that on November 2009, Tiger Woods was exposed to all of media scrutiny because of his infidelity scandal that started to rear its head on the 25th November in the same year when a supermarket tabloid, The National Enquirer published a story that claimed Tiger Woods was having an affair with a club hostess. A few days after this publication, Woods had an accident outside his home and after highly publicized media scrutiny; Woods came out stating that it was a private matter and therefore it did not require such scrutiny from the media. Amidst this public scrutiny, there were substantial evidence discovered that proved Woods had a string of extramarital affairs, which damaged his public image. Ostrow wrote that following these revelations, Woods came out to confirm the allegations, seek for a public apology, and request the press to respect his privacy. An excerpt of Woods’ statements whereby he reaffirms his right to privacy reads as follows, “there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy…the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.” From Woods’ statement, it was evidently clear that he was not pleased with the invasion of his privacy as well as that of his family of which according to Nordhaus, Woods was right since the public has no right to know what a celebrity his doing in his private life (291-295). Ostrow wrote that Woods’ right to privacy was stripped away because of the culture of ‘we deserve to know everything about everything.’ However, he further added that if Woods was to enjoy his full privacy then it would have consequences that included having fans who were not pleased and loss of endorsement deals. According to Ostrow, the invasion of Woods’ privacy nevertheless had negative repercussions on him in regards to his game and ranking, marriage, and even endorsement deals. Before, Woods privacy was invaded and the scandal broke out, Woods had an endorsement deal with Gatorade Company, which manufactured the sports drink Gatorade Tiger Focus. The drink was withdrawn from the shelves although the manufacturing company claimed that the move was not a direct result of the celebrity’s controversial lifestyle and that the company had withdrawn other products as well. Secondly, Woods had an endorsement deal with Accenture Plc, which decided to pull back all the company’s adverts that enjoined or featured Woods, despite having being linked to him since 2003.The move by Accenture Plc was attributed to the fact that Accenture’s advertisements closely linked Woods to the company’s values. Summarily, Woods was not able to seek for court orders because some of his mistresses willingly went to the press to give their account on Woods transgression. Secondly, during that particular time, the matter had gathered a lot of public interest and therefore, the press had the freedom to present information on any matter that has great public interest. Other cases where a celebrity was stripped away his/ her right of privacy According to Barford, the British Royal Family has also been a victim of invasion of privacy by the paparazzi, first it was the case of Princess Diana where the invasive techniques of paparazzi forced her chauffer to speed off in a reckless manner that lead to the accident that caused the life of Princess Diana. Even thou the paparazzi who were following Princess Diana were arrested, they were all released perhaps denoting that they had no case to answer. The other recent case of invasion of privacy affecting the Royal Family was in September 2012 when the Duchess of Cambridge was photographed by paparazzi while she was sunbathing topless at a holiday home in France. The Royal Family filled a lawsuit against the Closer, which is the French magazine that published the damaging photos, and they cited in the suit that the Duchess had a right of privacy whilst at a private property and the magazine responded by stating that the pictures were taken from a public highway. Barford further wrote that on August 2012, Prince Harry was photographed in a compromising state by the paparazzi at a Las Vegas hotel while he was completely naked. The photos, which were first, published on the TMZ website and later the Sun News paper caused embarrassment to the Royal Family. The Royal family equally filled a lawsuit against the Sun Newspaper in which they tried to prohibit the newspaper from publishing the photos citing that it was an invasion of the Prince’s privacy. In its defense, the Sun Newspaper stated that it was publishing the photo due to public interest, which was fueled by the fact that photos were all over the online media. Conclusion It is extremely hard for famous people or celebrities to enjoy their full right to privacy and this is mainly because of the fact that their private details get a lot of attention from the public. This attention fuels paparazzi efforts in taking photos of these people in their private moments and further these photos have a high market value. Unfortunately, in the spirit of upholding freedom of speech, the law has also protected the paparazzi and therefore, there is less that celebrities can do to avoid been photographed by the paparazzi. Works Cited Barford, Vanessa. Royal Family’s Difficult Relationship with Paparazzi. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397850.stm Accessed on [20.06.2013] O’Shaughnessy, Perri. Invasion of Privacy. U.S: Random House Publishing Group. 2008 Print Ostrow, Adam. Tiger Woods and the Destruction of Personal Privacy. Retrieved from : http://mashable.com/2009/12/02/tiger-woods-statement/ . Accessed on [20.06.2013] Nordhaus, James. Celebrities’ Right to Privacy: How Far Should the Paparazzi Be Allowed to Go? The Review of Litigation. Vol. 18: 286-314. Retrieved from: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/c734%20resources/celebrities%20rights%20- %20nordhaus.pdf. Accessed on [20.06.2013] owH Read More