9/9 Online Table Topics - Contestant responses

This is a hot topic, we must remember that public figures like us all are entitled to privacy, at least that is their argument. But being a public figure brings responsibility, and they should be scrutinised if it is in the public interest. Without the press watching them on our behalf, the public would be left in ignorence of any wrong doing that could their lives. As i said at the outset their position brings a demand for high standards of accountability,and in their private lives they should lead by example.

quote comment add new comment

A timely and interesting question, Contest Master, Fellow Toastmasters and Guests.  The private lives of public figures should not be open to press scrutiny unless their “secrets” and conducts influence their effectiveness as role models and leaders in today’s society. However, modern courts have ruled that if you are in the public limelight, your life becomes quasi public property and you will have to endure degrees of paparazzi-style scrutiny by the sensation-hungry press.

My position on this question is this:

Barring a criminal history or illegal activities, I could care less what their sexual orientations are, how many lovers they have, how much money they have, how and where they live and whether they do or do not worship. Regarding these criteria, the press has absolutely no right to scrutinize the lives of public figures. Live and let live is my motto, unless and until I am adversely affected by digressions of public figures.

But this is, of course, too simple. There are many categories of “public figures”. We have politicians, artists, athletes and educators who very much can and will influence to some degree my life and the lives of others in my society. They all can influence conduct and beliefs in our society. Especially children and young adults are impressionable and vulnerable and prone to emulate questionable acts of their perceived role models and idols.

At this point, press scrutiny is warranted. However, this is a very subjective topic and has a lot to do with ones morals and upbringing. And then, sometimes public figures welcome publicity and other times they complain about it.  They can’t have it both ways.

quote comment add new comment

No, they shouldn't.  However, where the private lives of public figures impinge negatively on their jobs - the drunken general with his finger on the nuclear trigger, the head mistress who embezzles school funds or the racist head of an equal opportunities commission - it is inevitable that their bad behaviour will draw the media to them.  This is largely because the new 'celebrities' - the Big Brother contestants, the Jordans, the footballers and their WAGs - positively court press publicity by their public display of private behaviour.  They want to be written about; they want to be 'papped'. 

 

The cult of the so-called celebrities has led to a press corps which will aggressively pursue any hint of a story concerning 'public figures', without regard for the effect the resulting article will have on the family and the employers of the subject.  And if the newspaper story is erroneous, there is no taking it back; the damage will have been done irreparably to the public figure's reputation.

 

I would like to see some way of protecting the privacy of non-celebrities.  The press should have a two-tier approach to publicity.  Perfectly fine to snap celebrities to their heart's delight; but, please, a closed season on people who wish their privacy to be respected.  Wouldn't it be great if 'public figures' being door-stopped could just call the police and have them come straight away to clear away the press corps and their ladders?  Yes, it would!

quote comment add new comment

No, i dont agree with the topic.   After all they are also human beings. Each individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants unless & untill they do not disturb others or harm others.   when u say private, it has to be private, just because ur a public figure, it does not mean u could anything.   everyone has their limits, for instance a upcoming actor in mumbai, india could not control his desires, he went ot rape his maid, such activites are not acceptable in the society and such people should be handled by the press and given a punishment

quote comment add new comment

Mr Topicsmaster
 
Recently I purchased the Godfather boxset. As I watched the Corleones
and the Tattalgias battle it out in New York, the following phrase kept
recurring "it's not personal, it's business". The mafiosi thought nothing
of riddling each other with tommy guns but never in front of the guy's
family or in his home. That was strictly off-limits. Even the mob accepted
that everyone was entitled to private time.

I would like to answer this case taking 3 British political figures;
the Labour leader, Gordon Brown. The Conservative leader, David Cameron.
And the former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy.

A few years back Gordon Brown and his wife welcomed the birth of a
daughter who was immediately diagnosed with a terminal illness. The baby
died aged 10 days. More recently his young son was diagnosed with cystic
fibrosis. We only know this because the family released the information,
probably to head off the press pack. Brown continued on as Chancellor,
becoming Prime Minister. His job performance was unimpaired. Is there any
reason why he should let the press investigate these aspects of his life?
Do we need to know? I would strongly advocate No.

David Cameron and his wife's eldest son, Ivan, was born severely
disabled. Here was this wealthy and privileged couple who had it all, but
now confronted with something their status could not solve. Unlike Brown,
Cameron and his wife invited the press to see how their lives had changed.
We got to see how they managed. Earlier this year, Ivan died. The Camerons
were left to grieve and after a short period, David Cameron returned to
politics and took up where he left off. Does anybody have a desire to know
what he and his wife were doing in the weeks following their son's death.

The final example is Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.
Coming up to the 2007 election, it was obvious there was something wrong.
His television performances were shambolic, slurred speech, poor grasp of
facts and heavy sweating. The press put it to him he had a drinking
problem. He denied it and continued to prepare for the election where,
however remote, he was running to be prime minister. The press continued
digging. Kennedy was forced to admit to long standing alcoholism and
stepped down as leader. I would argue that the scrutiny here was warranted.
This man was actively campaigning for the most powerful position in the
country while being regularly incapacitated by alcohol.

To conclude the private lives of public figures, so long as they do
not impact upon their ability to do their jobs, are within the law and do
not conflict with their public utterances should remain off limits to us.

quote comment add new comment

Thankyou for such an interesting and pertinent question.

The press seem to have a great deal of power. Where do they get this power from. I believe they have claimed it for themselves in the name of PUBLIC INTEREST. The press reveal all manner of details about all manner of people and justify their intrusion in our interest.

Have you ever read a news item and thought 'Who cares, that's their business'. I have. Have you ever thought 'I've done the same but that didn't make the news. I have. Public figures are as human as you and I. They have their life experiences too. No-one is as squeeky clean as the press seem to expect. Would the private live of  'The Press stand up to their own standard of scrutiny. Not all public figures are role models for the rest of us. We have our discression and can choose our own role models. private lives are or pehaps should be.

Words of a song spring to mind ' no one knows what goes on behind closed doors' and what goes on behind closed doors does not necessarily devalue the contribution public figures make to society. Public comment on public life otherwise MYOB press.

quote comment add new comment

When you think of the question what would you want to be the answer if you were a public figure?

 My first thought was exactly that, what would I want and the answer is yes.   Public figures are people we hold in a high esteem, we look up to them as being special yet they are simply doing their job, be it as a rock star or a political figure, their hours may not be normal to us, they are to the position they have.

Mr Toastmaster,

All of us at one time or another has been looked up to by someone and whilst we were being looked up to there may very well been something that we did but should not have, which if publicized would cause a problem for ourselves and others.  The press would take anything that did happen and sensationalize it with little if any regard to the truth.

Scrutiny of private lives has always been something that the press have thought to be their right with the cry “The public have the right to know”, often what they report has been twisted to make it a sensation when in fact it is simply something we would have done ourselves.  I find the fact that the press may have known of the situation for some time and not reported it then bring it out when the public figure is in a weak moment to be a despicable way of doing things.  They only bring it out when they feel it will cause major embarrassment to the public figure and sell more copies of their paper or have more people watch their TV program.  They never consider the consequences other then will it provide another front page story.

I would have no problem with the press scrutinising the private lives of public figures if it was reported at the time it occurred and not later with a view to hurt the public figure.  The attacking of tall poppies has always been the way of the press and the best way to bring down a successful public figure is through the casting of aspersions on their private lives.

By all means scrutinize but please do it fairly.

Mr Toastmaster.

quote comment add new comment

In answer to the question I find myself with a number of questions of my own.

For example;

What is meant by public?
How can we measure how public someone really is?
What’s the criteria for fame?
And is someone more public if they are a popstar or a politician?
Who would determine if someone is a public figure?
And how would it be determined?

Also, What type of scrutiny would these public figures be up against?
How would they be scrutinised?
Does it involve 24 surveillance?
Tapping phones and homing devices on cars and maybe even a personal implant to decipher where one is at all times?
And lastly how much would it cost?

And after all is said and done, can the poor Irish taxpayer take anymore?


Along with normal taxes that have been hiked, there could be some new taxes introduced;
Property tax, water tax what’s next air tax? Oh that’s right we do already pay tax to fly!
Wasn’t there a window tax once here in Ireland? I wonder how that worked out?

And So in answer to the question I find myself thinking does anyone really care?

Do I really need to know that Angelina Jolie has adopted another child? That Britney has had another breakdown? Or that Michael Jackson’s children don’t look like him?

And I see enough of Brian Cowen on my Tv as it is, I’m certainly not interested in what he does in his spare time.

What I would like to see scrutinised and out in the open is a proper debate on the Lisbon Treaty, so everyone could make a really informed decision at the voting stations.

Apart from that I think, that Private lives are exactly that Private, whether you’re a politician or a rock star or a wonderful mother (that’s my claim to fame!)

Mr Topicsmaster

quote comment add new comment

Mr. Topic’s Master

 

Yes!! For a number of reasons, public figures choose to be in the limelight and when they make this decision they forego their right to privacy on a number of levels. Let us take a couple of examples

 

Garry Glitter – the infamous Pop Star has been recently “outed” for his pedophilia activities – should this be kept Private?? Gary Glitter chose to be a Pop Icon, he chose to sell himself in the form of his music and all the positive PR that goes with that life.  Glitter and other music artists are role models for the young, people admire and revere them.  This necessitates the press to enlighten the public when these idols engage in illegal and immoral behavior.  Another famous and revered pop star that comes to mind is George Michael, when he was caught in a compromising and illicit situation instead of hanging his head in shame he made a video to one of his song’s “Lets go outside………..”

 

While I personally love George Michael’s music I do not believe he deserves privacy when he chooses to engage in disgusting and illegal behavior.

 

Then we have drug abuse – the famous model Kate Moss, to whom literally millions of young teenagers and women look up to was caught on camera snorting coke at a fellow celebrities party – does she deserve her privacy??  What about the famous British female Pop signer Amy Winehouse – she had to be hospitalised because of her drink and drug abuse – Does she deserve her privacy?

And then even in politics a little closer to home we had a Fianna Fail back bencher who was caught on camera doing what looked like snorting cocaine? – this a public representative – Does he deserve his Privacy??

 

No – when people choose to be public figures they surrender their right to privacy, unfortunately there are times when this may seem extremely unfair, particularly in areas of their lives such as their family life but they are not naïve.  They knew when they chose the public way that the automatic right to privacy was a price that they were going to have to pay.

 

Mr. Topic’s Master for the protection of the rest of us, public figures should be open to press scrutiny!!

quote comment add new comment

"I believe the press has an obligation to investigate the private lives of public figures, and I’d like to tell you why.

Contest Chair, Toastmasters: How many times have you heard of a celebrities complaining about the press invading their privacy? Happens all the time, right?

These people are hypocrites! On the one hand they crave publicity, and on the other, they complain when they get it! They want the good publicity -- but can’t handle the bad. But you can’t have one and not the other.

As soon as someone steps into the limelight as a celebrity or public figure, they have to accept that the public will be interested in their private life.

I believe the public has a legitimate right to be interested. Often celebrities use their public profile and status to endorse certain actions on controversial issues, yet their private lives are not congruent with their public stance.

For example you might have a celebrity campaigning against psychiatric drugs, saying they are evil. Yet investigations might reveal he has a close family member using these very drugs. Or another public figure might be encouraging people to lose weight by dieting and willpower, yet investigations might reveal she lost weight by a stomach stapling operation, so again the public stance is not congruent with the private reality.

And for this reason I believe the press should not only be allowed to, but have an obligation to, investigate the private lives of public figures."

quote comment add new comment

Mr Table Topics Master, Fellow contestants, honourable judges...
 

"Private Life" is "what we do when we think no one is watching." It is the private lives of public figures that tell us who they really are.

 
Thus the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny: If I cannot trust you in the small actions you take when you think no one is looking, I cannot trust you with actions that affect me and my family.
 
Specifically...

    * If a politician does not keep the marriage vows he makes to his wife, why should I think he will keep the commitments he makes to Parliament?
    * If a celebrity has regular plastic surgery and lyposuction, why should I trust her testimonial that a particular brand of snack food is healthy?
    * If an official's lifestyle exceeds his official salary, why shouldn't we ask where the money came from and what did he have to do to get it?

Are there exceptions? Yes. But the exceptions are generally minor. The holiday snaps of a celebrity sitting on a beach may briefly titilate, but will be quickly forgotten unless the situation says something about the celebrity's moral character.

 

... also...

 

The presess must be subject to the same laws as everyone else: They cannot break and enter. They cannot commit burglary. They cannot stock celebrities to the point a court would issue a restraining order against them if they were ordinary citizens, or an ex-spouse.

 

But with this proviso...

 

In my opinion, the press scrutiny of the private lives of public figures is critical to the public's ability to determine which public figures we can trust with which decisions.

My answer to the question, "Should the private lives of public figures be open to press scrutiny?" is "Yes"

quote comment add new comment