Media’s right to privacy
by
S.Madhusudhana Rao |
There is a fine line between the right to know and the need to know
Two recent events have reignited the debate on the media’s right to publish or telecast whatever they want ‘in the interest of the public’. One is the nocturnal car crash of Tiger Woods, the king of golf, who earned a name and wealth hitting a ball for a living, and Queen Elizabeth of Britain. While Woods maintains a stoic silence about the accident, which could have got him, in normal circumstances, a ticket and some black points, the media, ever eager to feed the hungry readers and viewers with salacious titbits, have gone to town washing his dirty linen in public.
Since the accident, Tiger has not stirred out of his den, fearing more press and public scrutiny, letting them judge his extra-marital affairs. While tabloids have a field day digging out his off-field activities, bloggers are adding spice to the drama that is unfolding with more mistresses coming out of the closet to reveal their secret encounters with the No. 1 golfer in the world. The aim is to cash in on his moments of weakness as long as he is willing to buy their silence. It’s a gamble being played dexterously by both sides. But often, in such cases, the loser will be the famous, rich or an iconic figure like Woods.
While his case is that of the laity, the royalty is a perpetual source of news and gossip. They reached their nadir at Lady Diana’s time and went through the Palace roof after her death in a Paris car crash in 1997. The circumstances in which she died were tragic but the accident brought the role of paparazzi to global attention. The outcry had subdued the overenthusiastic media corps to some extent but the British royals have not escaped the prying eyes of the press.
Queen Elizabeth’s letter to editors of newspapers and magazines complaining about photographers intruding on the royal family’s privacy and threatening to take legal action if the shutter-bugs continue to upset them when they are not on official work indicates the Palace frustration with the paparazzi.
Woods and British royals represent the two ends of the spectrum where celebrities’ private affairs are public concern. No doubt, they make news everywhere and their fan-following is legion. But does the immense public interest in them give the media unbridled freedom to encroach upon their privacy?
Time and again, media pundits raise this issue, questioning journalistic ethics and standards. But it goes beyond academic discussion: There is a fine line between the right to know and the need to know. In the free world, people enjoy all the rights related to speech and expression and the media derives its rights and freedoms from the universal principle of spreading knowledge, inter alia news, without fear and favour. And, one of the pillars of democracy is free press, considered a watchdog of government functioning. The media and their representatives’ right to seek and publish/ telecast information that is deemed to be in public interest is constitutionally safeguarded.
Earlier, there were few transgressions of the unwritten law that honoured some of the cardinal principles in the business of disseminating information such as maintaining confidentiality, protecting individual privacy and exercising discretion. In recent years, the need to know, however trivial and personal it is, has been overriding the right to know, undermining the concept of responsible journalism.
Once a section of the print and electronic media has started satisfying the insatiable public thirst for intimate details of others’ lives the distinction between the right and need to know vanishes. In today’s no-holds-barred media world what goes on in celebrities’ bedrooms or on beaches is public interest. Is it vicarious pleasure or sadistic instinct is difficult to say.
The more one ascends the ladder of popularity the more one becomes susceptible to public scrutiny, not necessarily one’s public service. The fact that celebrities, political and social leaders, celluloid heroes and heroines, sports champs and anybody who comes into limelight is a cut above others and ordinary people expect them to be smearless. It may be too much to expect them to be role models but the onus is on them to live up to the expectations of their fan-following.
The latest revelations, or allegations, that Woods had 10 mistresses, naturally, shocked his admirers all over the world. No doubt, it’s his private affair. What he does off the field is none of our business. He became a golf legend for his extraordinary skills in hitting a small ball into holes, not for his seductive talents. Similarly, when Bill Clinton was the president of the most powerful country in the world indiscretion almost cost him his presidency when White House intern Monica Lewinsky blew the whistle.
From the highest political office to the glamorous world of movies and adrenalin-pumping sports, testosterone-high personae appear to balance their high profile public performances with private romantic romps and flings. The question is how far the media should go in digging out details, leave alone the propriety and appropriateness, in the name of freedom of press and the right to seek information.
The current trends point to only one direction: Whet the appetite of readers/viewers as much as possible until both sides are fed up and let the issue die on its own. But the lurking danger is misuse of media freedom to settle scores or vilify others.
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for S.Madhusudhana Rao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
