Celebrities and public individuals are in the newspapers, magazines and the news every day. The stories people find the most interesting are the ones in which public figures are caught in scandalous circumstances or the ones with revelations about hypocrisy. Sometimes it’s necessary for the media to expose the private lives of public individuals in order to keep the public informed, but what justification is there for it? In this essay I will outline the reasons I believe the private lives of public individuals should be exposed, using contemporary examples where possible, to reinforce my opinion.
One thing that has to be realised is that when individuals become public figures they open themselves up for a certain level of interference from the media. I believe this is the first justification for exposing the private lives of public individuals. Many celebrities and TV personalities are quite happy to accept the good publicity they receive yet expect the media to turn a blind eye when they conduct themselves in a less than savoury manner. One such landmark case is that of Naomi Campbell who owes a lot to the media for making her who she is. She regularly attends glamorous modelling events, and at one time even exploited the media fully by launching her own range of perfume and jeans. However, in 2001 she successfully sued the Mirror newspaper for printing photographs of her attending a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in London, leaving the paper with a legal bill of at least a million pounds. In my opinion, this is a gross injustice against the media. Had Naomi been accidentally flaunted in the media spotlight I may have felt rather sympathetic to her cause, but the fact she has always actively thrusted herself into the spotlight just makes me angry that she believes she is exempt from negative publicity. Therefore, I believe justice was done when the court ruling was reversed earlier this year after the Mirror rightly proved that Campbell had lied about her addiction several times before-hand. Desmond Brown, QC, who was acting for the paper explained:
“”Her lies went back at least four years. Her denials of using illegal drugs were repeated in a number of interviews. She laid herself open to exposure as a hypocrite. Someone who has courted publicity in a favourable sense can’t thereafter complain if the publicity they attract is less favourable.””
Of course, this means I believe there is justification for invading the private lives of public individuals if they constantly use the media to build their careers. Naomi had no right to compensation. If you take another classic example – Jordan or Katie Price. She uses the media to build her career but unlike Naomi, takes every piece of publicity. She didn’t sue anyone when the sex tape of her and ex-boyfriend Dane Bowers was unleashed on the public, nor when she received defamatory comments like ‘dumb blonde’ and ‘trash’ from the tabloids. Naomi obviously isn’t the only celebrity guilty of double standards. Though not many have sued papers for negative publicity, a lot have still got the nerve to complain about press interference.
Madonna has been heralded as one of the greatest and most ‘provocative’ artists of our time. She has used the camera to the maximum by way of movie performances, music videos, interviews, and even publicity stunts (remember the Britney kiss?). How then can she complain about the press attending her Scottish wedding? I believe she waived any rights to privacy she had when she stepped on stage wearing a wedding dress, screaming about virginity.
Elton John can only be described as a blatant attention seeker, grabbing as much attention as he can. Every concert or magazine article he can appear in, he does. He makes his opinions known to everyone. Recently he complained about Madonna lip-synching, and claimed Robbie Williams was ‘not a well budgie’ . Yet, he still had the audacity to complain about the press recently at a Taiwanese airport calling them ‘rude, vile pigs’ .
I do think it’s justified to invade the private lives of public individuals therefore if they use the media to their advantage whenever possible. In cases like that of the late Kurt Cobain, however, I can understand when it isn’t justified. The fame that came with being a rock ‘star’ was too much for him and his depression eventually killed him. Others who don’t deserve to have their private lives invaded are those who just want to do their job with as little fame as possible (e.g. soap actors and smaller musicians).
A good comparison between the two extremes of who deserves to have their private life invaded and who doesn’t comes down to one soap; neighbours. Two musicians came out last year, one serious, the other not. I’m referring to Holly Valance and Delta Goodrem. Delta released her first album entitled ‘Innocent Eyes’ which showcased her musical talent in her voice, song writing skills, and piano skills. She was glamorous and serious about her music and refused any kind of risqué publicity. Her album sold in millions and she is still highly respected in the music industry. Holly, on the other hand, arrived on the scene with ‘Footprints’ and her first video had her dancing completely naked with heavy make-up on. The video became extremely popular and everyone began buying her albums just for the sheer sex appeal. She then went on to use magazines such as FHM, Maxim, and Loaded to ‘spice up’ her already highly erotic image. When she established herself as an ‘artist’ she refused to do any more dirty dancing and was subsequently dropped from her record label. She began blaming the bad publicity from the media for her downfall. She claimed the media had violated her rights by asking her what she wore to bed and photographing her without permission. She explained that ‘all that isn’t even really important in the long run’ . She caused her own downfall by letting herself become open to bad publicity and it was justified the media exposing her private life. Her first three singles were ‘Kiss Kiss’, ‘Down Boy’ and ‘Naughty Girl’. I somehow don’t think the media are to blame for her downfall. Delta is still doing great.
Being a celebrity or constantly in the spotlight can also mean having a highly important job or being a major representative for a company. I believe it’s justifiable invading the private lives of public individuals if the information uncovered by the press brings the person’s suitability for their role under question. Possibly the most famous example of this is none other than former president of the United States, Bill Clinton. When a new intern, Monica Lewinsky came to work in the White House, shortly afterwards rumours started circulating about an illicit affair between the president and Lewinsky. Clinton famously swore under oath that he ‘did not have sexual relations with that woman’. It turned out he did and was impeached by the House of Representatives. The president has the most important job in America and invasion of privacy is completely justifiable as is exposing his private life. If he lied under oath about one thing, who’s to say he wouldn’t have done it again about something slightly more serious. Clinton wasn’t the only president whose private life compromised his position of course. Ronald Reagan was president in 1983 and came under fire after it was found he was peddling weapons to Iran to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. He lied and the public needed to know about it.
If we look at British politics, it’s right to investigate the private lives of every single member of the labour party or party in power, and even the opposition depending on whether their policies and activities collide. It is interesting that the labour government has recently passed a new gambling bill which could see large casinos rising in our cities and a myriad of new gamblers appearing (or rather gambling addicts). It’s a little coincidental then that a close friend of Tony Blair and the highest investor in the Labour party is none other than a director of betting website bet365.com. Peter Coates, who owns a string of betting shops across Cheshire and the Midlands, has donated more than £100,000 to the party and a matter like this deserves to be brought under scrutiny as it could be seen as a charitable bribe. Tony Blair also has brought in a policy to tackle binge-drinking and Britain’s yob culture, but the tabloids last year ran a story showing his 16-year-old son drunk and disorderly. Private revelations like these can and do undermine authority in public figures, hence why I strongly believe it is justified if the person (s) involved has a social responsibility.
Outside politics, there are equal roles that are played by public figures such as musicians or rather ‘pop stars’ that have a responsibility towards children. Artists like Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, and S Club 7 were all initially aimed at children with squeaky-clean images but as we’ve come to see, they’re now far from that.
Britney Spears, when she released ‘Baby One More Time’, was made out to be a friendly, fun, outgoing, Christian, virgin. When she was depicted on-screen talking on the phone in the early years she came across as one of the nicest people in the world, and children everywhere made her their best friend. No matter how you try and shake an image like that, it just can’t be done and every female star does it at some stage (Christina Aguilera or even Cher for example). Despite what they believe, their audience doesn’t automatically change when they decide to reinvent themselves with a new image. Therefore the media has a duty to Britney’s loyal fans to keep them informed if their idol does something they claim not to. Britney is an outright hypocrite, and her personal live deserves to be exposed to prove just how unsuitable she is to children. She always claimed she never believed in sex before marriage yet she’s allegedly slept with at least 6 men. She’s always taken an anti-drink and drugs stance but has allegedly been seen consuming both by friends (she was even allegedly drunk when marrying her child friend Jason Alexander in Las Vegas). Britney is no longer the ‘sweet and innocent’ girl who hit our screens years ago and children do need to be protected from anything ‘adult’, no matter how small. Recently, parents at one of Britney’s concerts complained about the sexual dancing she performed and deemed it unsuitable for children.
Michael Jackson has been very well respected by millions of people for decades and everyone knows that his goal has always been to achieve world peace, and ‘protect our children’s children’ . His role therefore is as a protector of children, hence why alarm bells started ringing recently when Jackson held his baby son, Prince Michael the second, over his balcony in sheer glee after seeing the press outside. It was justified the invasion of his private life thereafter to protect the children in question. The media later released an article alleging that Michael was providing alcohol to the kids sleeping over, a clear violation of his role.
S Club 7 were also unveiled to the world as the squeaky-clean bunch and even released a children’s television show ‘Miami 7’. With young fans everywhere, it was the media’s duty to invade their private lives to ensure they weren’t involved in anything unsavoury. It was uncovered at a later stage that the boys in the group were caught smoking hash. Not something suitable for children and therefore invasion of their private lives was justified. Same could also be said for Richard Bacon who was fired from Blue Peter after admitting taking Cocaine.
Speaking of which, Angus Deayton was also fired from his role as the host of ‘Have I Got News For You’ after it was found he was allegedly having sex with prostitutes in a seedy hotel while snorting cocaine. His role was to comment on the news headlines in the show and it made him unable to fulfil his role as the presenter. When the BBC sacked him, their official response was:
“It was felt by all concerned that continued stories about Angus’ private life made him the subject of headlines, rather than commentating on them, and made his position as host of the topical satire programme untenable.”
Other role models in Britain include the Beckhams. Many people look up to them as the golden couple of the UK. People want to be just like the Beckhams. The money, the glamour, the stability. Their role is therefore of a stable, solid family and they play to the role. They are seen kissing and showing affection almost constantly in public, and are always pictured with their children Brooklyn and Romeo. David uses the image of the ‘family man’ along with his footballer sex appeal to sell products and the media effectively keeps his career alive, while keeping Victoria in the spotlight too. They have given up their right to privacy like those I mentioned earlier in the essay but also have the role to live up to, making them a very complicated media frenzy altogether. Recently, stories came out regarding David’s infidelity with a woman called Rebecca Loos. The story was never proven true, but never proven false either and it was completely justified the paper releasing the story. It proves that, if true, the Beckhams aren’t as strong a household as everyone imagines and, if false, they are as strong as we are made to believe.
The same role applies to the royal family. We know of Princess Diana’s wonderful charity work and her tragic death, but she was only human in my opinion. Not in most other people’s eyes though. The media constantly report on shocking discoveries about Diana’s troubled past which most people find incredibly droll and annoying but at the end of the day, yes she may be dead but it’s still right to invade her privacy to keep the public informed on her. Her role is, of course, the late princess of Wales (a title which everyone looks up to). Also, we have her sons still living who are the heirs to the throne. We need to be able to see them as royalty and above us in terms of status. They should be the pure, trustworthy monarchs but, that’s just a role. No wonder the papers recently printed news that Harry cheated on his Art exam, was reportedly drunk outside a night club, and that he punched a photographer. They are seen as gods by many but are merely human. They have a role though and the press are right to invade their private lives to oust corruption.
So I therefore believe that all public figures who have either exploited the media for personal or financial gain, or those with a role to play (either chosen or passed-down) should have their private lives invaded. I do believe that those who become famous or are thrust into the spotlight accidentally don’t deserve to have their privacy taken away from them. The public must be kept continually informed on everything that happens to their role models and politicians, whether it should be public knowledge or not. Without knowing everything about everyone in the spotlight, we would be subjected to nothing but lies and falsity. Not to mention, if you take away the right to investigate into the private lives of public individuals, we will lose our freedom of the press. Without freedom of the press, we have nothing and will become part of a lie.
