Tabloids vs. Celebrities

Great Debates
1

Two of the many possible sides to this issue, as I see it:

  1. Celebrities have by their fame given up their right to privacy. The attention of tabloids and paparazzi is a necessary evil of celebrity. Rumors about celebrities represent actual news to many people, so tabloids are justified in their actions.

  2. Every citizen has a basic right to privacy regardless of fame. Publishing rumors that are damaging is irresponsible journalism.

I come down most of the time on the side of #2. Agree? Disagree? Have another way of looking at it?

I done run for president.
Didn’t win, though.

2

This option is simply silly, though it seems to be accepted by an awful lot of people. Unless a celebrity has explicitly stated that they don’t want their right to privacy, then they have it. The fact that a lot of people want to know what they’re doing in private is not a reason to abridge that right. In fact, thats the reason that there is a right to privacy-so that even when lots of people want to know something personal about you, you have a right to not let them know.

I have to agree with that statement, but carefully since often this statement leads to arguments for the abridgement of the freedom of the press. I suppose the best answer to the problem is to let the celebrities sue the tabloids for publishing untrue rumors, and hope that they eventually will stop doing it.
(the fact that this hasn’t worked yet does not say good things about society as a whole and it’s obsession with famous personalities.)

3

I’m a British journalist, so here’s a reply from inside the profession.

Firstly don’t confuse the very separate issues of (1) untrue rumours/stories(libel/defamation) and (2) invasion/breach of privacy.

There are clear laws in the UK (and throughout the world, though legislation obviously varies) concerning defamation, slander and malicious falsehood. No one would dispute that it is wrong to print inaccurate and false reporting that can cause damage to any person, famous or otherwise.

The issue of privacy is more blurred. It is possible to have the profession of “actor” or “singer” for example and keep a fairly low public profile.

Being a “star” or “celebrity” is far more a matter of choice. Now it might be argued that it’s anyone’s right to star in a huge blockbuster and not be hassled, but the reason the film is huge and the paypackets are huge is because such films are funded by the spending money of the general public. The same goes for music and television stars, and sports stars. I think this gives the public desire to know about these people, and a right to have that desire fulfilled. Tom Cruise’s mansions are paid for by your weekly cinema ticket.

Their high pay recognises their fame, “box-office draw” - the fact that these people are of interest to the public. Press and media attention is obviously the flip side of the same coin.

Telephoto lenses are a major issue - where to draw the line? I consider filming anyone someone where they believe they have privacy and should expect to believe that - in a lavatory, bathroom, inside their home, inside a private club (the secret filming of Princess Diana at her gym club was despicable) - and so on.

But in any public place - in the street, in car parks, in gardens open to public view, at premieres, in restaurants, on holiday, etc etc they are fair game. Celebrities already have huge pay, why should they be afforded any more protection than the ordinary man or woman in the street?

4

istara, thanks for clarifying the issue. The British tabloids tend to take the most heat, don’t they. I agree with the statement, “Well, if you want the paparazzi to stop following you, stop making movies, they’ll thin out pretty quick”.

But describing someone as “fair game” hints at the attitude that gives these journalists a bad name. My insight into journalism is limited. And I understand that we the public encourage this type of zealous journalism with our pocketbooks. But isn’t this predatory attitude damaging to both the journalist and his subject?

I done run for president.
Didn’t win, though.