It has to be taken into consideration what privacy' means in undertaking this question. As Merrill says, it's based on broad, fuzzy guidelines' where such notions at best only moderate media behavior and at worst are completely ambiguous and meaningless.' (Merrill, 1999. pg. 161)

Simply accepting that celebrities are voluntarily public people' dismisses an important point. Gordon believes it is a greater good' when the public have as complete information about a person who works or offers to work in the public arena.' (Gordon, 1999. pg. 149) However, this fails to define a line between what elements of private life need to be made public, and what deems that information a greater good'. If this translates, as Gordon says, to sensational material designed to increase audience size' then the greater good' feeds the curiously voyeuristic times where the value of privacy, discretion and the keeping of confidences are undermined by the exhibitionism exemplified by Big Brother and the Jerry Springer Show.' (Sanders, 2004. pg. 79)

Given the popularity of these programmes, it implies people are inquisitive even nosey and they want news about other people. They want details, even (or especially) sordid or scandalous details and they pay attention when the mass media focus on celebrities.' (Gordon, 1999. pg. 149)

Thus the media's need' is to maintain this appetite. Gaining the most sensational' information becomes paramount. Sanders discusses how Princess Diana's gym sessions were filmed, letters were stolen and phone conversations recorded yet it is hard to see any overwhelming good which was served by any of the examples given.' (Sanders, 2004. pg. 85)

The tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997, underlines this, but while the public reaction blamed the media for the relentless pursuit of the Princess, Private Eye magazine noted an element of irony. (Sanders, 2004) While the public blamed the press, their voyeuristic needs had an insatiable appetite for pictures of the crashed car, and information about the tragic events. Thus, the line between what the public need to know, and what they desire to know is muddied by the media's need to maintain its audience.

Therefore, Sanders' question, Where is the dividing line between the right to freedom of information and that of privacy' is all important. (ibid. pg 79) As Gordon states, the so-called right to privacy is not always the same as the public's need to know' (Gordon, 1999. pg. 154) and thus privacy'

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 7
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Our interest or theirs? Celebrity and the Press?
We want to hear your view. Write now!