Hi Everyone Questions - Should the private lives of public figures be open to press scrutiny?

[sugarlicious]

Do people have a right to know about those in power over them. Their salaries are paid for by the people (whether through taxes, in the case of politicians and civil servants, or by revenue generated by films, CDs, TV, etc., in the case of celebrities). The decisions of public political figures affect many aspects of people’s lives; in exchange the people have the right to make informed judgements about the kind of leaders they have. Any attempt to restrict what may be reported about public figures in the press could easily become a conspiracy to keep voters in the dark and to manipulate them.

What do you think ???? Thoughts please

 

[velvett]

Yes.

 

[sugarlicious]

Yes.

Velvett

Dont you think the ‘public interest’ is not the same thing as what the public is interested in. There will always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. Nor should public figures be held to higher standards of personal behaviour than the rest of society by a sensationalist press seeking only to sell newspapers. If newspapers were forced to focus upon the policies and public actions of politicians, rather than their personal foibles, democracy would be better served.

 

[cindylou]

Yes, but not family members

 

[velvett]

Velvett

Dont you think the ‘public interest’ is not the same thing as what the public is interested in. There will always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. Nor should public figures be held to higher standards of personal behaviour than the rest of society by a sensationalist press seeking only to sell newspapers. If newspapers were forced to focus upon the policies and public actions of politicians, rather than their personal foibles, democracy would be better served.

I think we have the right to know about the those that are closest to them as they will very often influence their decisions and effect their emotions and day to day lives. They gave up the right to privacy when they choose to be a public official. (Besides you don't have the privacy you think you have)

Yes, I do agree that the media can very easily skew information to read as they want it to so that is a problem but if you want to be a public official one must be prepared to have every aspect of their lives and their immediate family's lives examined.

 

[sugarlicious]

I think we have the right to know about the those that are closest to them as they will very often influence their decisions and effect their emotions and day to day lives. They gave up the right to privacy when they choose to be a public official. (Besides you don't have the privacy you think you have)

Yes, I do agree that the media can very easily skew information to read as they want it to so that is a problem but if you want to be a public official one must be prepared to have every aspect of their lives and their immediate family's lives examined.

Private morality and eccentricities have no automatic relationship to someone’s ability to do a job well. Many great political leaders have had messy personal lives, while others, with blameless private lives, have been judged failures in office. If modern standards of press intrusion and sensationalism had been applied in the past, how many respected leaders would have reached or survived in office? Kennedy (adultery)? Roosevelt (disability)?

 

[velvett]

Private morality and eccentricities have no automatic relationship to someone’s ability to do a job well. Many great political leaders have had messy personal lives, while others, with blameless private lives, have been judged failures in office. If modern standards of press intrusion and sensationalism had been applied in the past, how many respected leaders would have reached or survived in office? Kennedy (adultery)? Roosevelt (disability)?

You're assuming that everyone would look down upon leaders that are human and not on leaders that appear "perfect".