Individual’s Right to Privacy and Public’s Right to Know

          The life of famous people is a subject that interests more and more people. A line has to be placed between the individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know. Today we have a lot of magazines such as "People" or "Us" that only write about famous people and their private life. I can also mention the TV channel "E!" which has celebrity news. For me reading and listening about famous people is only for things we want to know. It is absolutely not things we need to know. For example a senator's sexual orientation do not influences his program and we shouldn't know all the details about a famous person's death. I think that this interest is a hobby. Some people have similarities to famous people and identify themselves with them. This is why they want to know everything about them. They want to act like famous people or even to dress like them. They like to know that a singer or an actress is in reality not so perfect. For sure it is not necessary to know which figures are unfaithful to their spouses but it is attractive for readers. For example, the New York Times ethicist Randy Cohen compares legitimates news and gossip. I agree with him that gossip is alright as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. The reporter should not hurt people intentionally. Public figures and ordinary people do not have the same rights. When they accept to be famous they accept a public's right to information. I think that famous people have to give some of their privacy but reporters have to respect them. For me, as long as the family right to privacy is respected and nobody is hurt, the public has a right to information about professional life and carrier.

Privacy in Media and How it Affects Us

            There is a lot of information that is available in the media today.  Journalists that report that information are not always reporting the facts or legitimate information.  The editors of tabloids will print all kinds of gossip and untruthful information.  For example, Kate Moss just won a suit against a tabloid for printing a story about her looking for a doctor about loosing weight.  The story was not true and she won money which she donated to charity.  I don’t think that we need to have all this information especially gossip, and the media should not invade someone’s privacy unless the information is important to the public.  For example, knowing if President Clinton lied is important but whether Oliver W. is gay is irrelevant.  Even though Olive W. became famous because of saving President Ford’s life it does not mean that his life should be invaded by the media.  If the person is a public figure than the public has the right to know more about the their lives but if a person is not involved in public duty even if they are a celebrity it does not mean that we need to know if they are unfaithful for example.  Even President Clinton, I don’t care if he was unfaithful but I care if he lied or not.  I understand that there is a huge market in need of gossip information, especially since majority of readers of tabloids are teenagers but very little of this information should be reported on major networks as it is not important to the general public.  For example, Anna Nicole Smith was famous and her mysterious death is somewhat important for the public but the whole trial and so much news about her on TV is too much.  Same thing for Britney Spears, I mean it’s okay to report that she is dealing with issues but to report that she shaved her head is absurd.  However, the tabloids are full of pictures and stories about this sort of thing instead of reporting real issues in this world.  For example, CNN will only briefly report on things like Britney Spears and instead shows you more about what is going on in the rest of the world like nuclear problems with Iran and North Korea and the war in Iraq.  If more media would report on these types of stories than maybe we would be smarter and the world would not look at us as self-centered.  Therefore, I think that the media should report more of legitimate information and less of gossip and there should be more knowledgeable stories in the media especially that the teenagers read.

Differences of Gossip and News

     Gossip is very similar with the news, but also has many differences. First of all, news is more serious than gossip. Most news talks about politics, economy, culture, and so on. News pays attention to the question is right or wrong. It sounds too serious for us. Most gossip talks about trivial bagatelles around our living. We don’t need to know who is right and who is wrong. We just interested its content. It is easier. In the next place, gossip and news usually appear in different place. Gossip always appears in our living, but news most time appears in newspaper, magazine, broadcast, and television. Lastly, there are different people like to gossip or news. Most teenagers like using telephone to gossip, but most adults pay attention to news. In conclusion, gossip and news have many differences from their content, appear places, and who likes them.

 Peeping Tom Journalism

     The media tells us a lot of information including personal experiences and facts. When especially famous people die, reporters tell all their stories in their life on media. Humans, each person, have human right. Even though they are dead or alive, but people break rules sometimes, when especially public figure dies. There are three reasons that they shouldn’t report any details of their private life. First of all, it is human right abuse that media reports public private life, especially when public figure dies. The media use those information just for catching a attention of public to get rate. Following public figure’s scandal is the best news for media to get public’s attention that they like to talk about people, especially, politicians, teachers, police, any other official or public worker’s stainless who are the model of society. For example, it was reported that politicians are gay and Gennifer Flowers, who was secretary of president, had twelve- year affair with President. These news are definitely human right abuse, but in fact, public enjoy the scandals. Private information runs out of the world without person’s acceptation. It happens a lot to especially public figure that it involves their human right. Acceptation is the most important line that it would be private or public information. Second, the small fame could invade people’s private life. Most of tabloid news seems relevant because its people want to know, not need to know. Being a community or any group makes us to care about how people see us. People like to talk about others private. The fame sometimes makes you feel better to know how you are in community. People just curious about others, however, in mean time, they makes fuss about celebrities and one month later, no longer people talk bout it, but the fame scrutinizes and invade their life, some times it even could change their life. For example, Rosa Lopez, who worked as maid working quietly, was just like anyone else and anonymously in the public, nevertheless, when she suddenly became a key witness in the O.J Simpson trial, she became focus of intense scrutiny. She eventually returned to her hometown. The media and public destroyed and invade her quiet life. Third, the line that invade the privacy between public figure and ordinary people should be the same. Remember, we are the same human being, no matter what race, famous, poor or rich. We have the same human right that we automatically received when we were born in this world. However, public like to know what’s going on in different world which is celebrity’s world that hidden by money and media that famous people make us curious about them. It seems public figure’s issue to loose ordinary life. However, human right was supported to protect our private that we don’t want anyone knows about us. If we didn’t have human right, personal information would be everywhere that we had no private. Nevertheless we should always remember that each person has human right to have own privacy. In conclusion, the line is definitely the same that each person has right to protect their private life and we can’t invasion that for any reason. People should be more careful about privacy when media reports about person.

Limit of Privacy

         Should the public know all the details when a famous person dies? There are two knowing things about their details that are the experiences of famous, successful people and private information. First of all, a famous person leaves their activities, but many people do not know their specific activities, so if people got their good information, they will make use of it for their life.  Second, a famous person leaves original steps to be famous.  For example, one of the famous musicians practices their skill in all days. Like this, the public also has to leave their steps for the next generation themselves. But, we do not need their private information to live our life. When journalist writes about it, nobody makes a profit. It is just hurt famous people. In conclusion, the public need to know about their experiences and steps because the public can benefit from knowing that information. On the other hand, we do not need to know about their private information such as a politician sexual orientation and marital fidelity because it is that famous people just suffer many privations.

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

            Should people be informed about a public figure’s death, sexual orientation or infidelity? Most people like to be informed about their favorite artist or any public figure they love including politicians etc. For example, suppose the Ricky Martin died, as a public figure Ricky gained lots of fans in his profession as a singer. In this case, fans have the legitimate interest about what happened and how it happened. This most be important for the public, the lost a great figure in music. On the other hand, sexual orientation or infidelities are personal information that the public does not need to know about a public figure. For instance, in The North Star book paragraph 10 (pg.6) says “When Sara Jane Moore pointed a gun at President Ford; a man in the crowd knocked her hand, deflecting the shot. The man Oliver W. Simplee, became an instant hero. He was thirty-three years old and a Marine veteran.” But in this story there was a news columnist that published about the local gay leaders saying that they were proud of Simplee’s action. This is that people didn’t need to know, but it was extra information that had an impact on Simplee. He sued the columnist for invading his privacy for his sexual orientation, and said that he suffered “mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation.” However, people have the right to know some important stuff about a public figure, but also it might be people that want to know everything.

Reporter or Gestapo

In my opinion we do not need to know the personal news from the public figures, the reporters are leading us to a wrong way.  First, every person should have their personal spaces, not only ordinary people, public figures need personal spaces too.  Lots of public figures are talking about this question.  Because public figures are different from ordinary people, their life in the camera.  They need personal spaces agog.  Second, the reporter should differentiate which is the public news and witch is the personal news.  The reporter could report personal news in legal way just because they are reporter.  So they can report any news and shout pictures any where.  We can see the web, lots of public figures’ personal news.  They are more than sensational news, but personal news is also legitimate news. Reporters have power to report news, so they can report public figures’ personal news in legal way.  So government should make a more detailed reporter law to protect public figures as soon as possible.  My standpoint is public figures’ family, their girlfriend or boyfriend is the forbidden zone of report.  Public figures go out shopping and eating, make a new movie or beneficence, these could be public.  That’s why I said that we do not need to know the public figures’ personal news; the reporters are leading us to a wrong way.

Effect of news on the people

     Did Ananicol Smith had a sever depression? Did she commit suicide? A boy is selling the newspaper and crying. I pay one dollar and start to read. Privacy and regarding it is important for every one that lives in this country. Have to be a line between a report about celebrities in an event, and press or publish a report about a simple employee in other accident. For example, when a member of senate " Mr. Jack- Jump", who had two children and a beautiful wife, and his secretary" who called Maria- P " had been seen in the Hotel Panama in 1891 in Paris, suddenly they become focus of intense scrutiny and there was a lot of stories about them in magazines and newspaper in all of the year 1891. In this case reporters in his activity for voting. People won't be sorry later, but senator Jack was very happy, so he became famous than before. Now how about small Jamie? (Who his friend called him small, so he was very fat), who jumped in front Of the train and saved a little boy in 1900 in TTcity. Suddenly this poor and honest man became focus of intense scrutiny. The Competition between networks of news, which is for making first hand hot news and selling for making more money, finally annoyed Jamie very much. He was pressed by a condition of negative mental. Unfortunately Jamie this poor and so nice man was got to anonyms. In this case of Jamie, he had been righted a privacy for himself. These words were talked by (name) who is layer of Ana Nicole' driver. Today's he is focus of corresponds and networks of report. The essay continued. But I think if reports and scrutinizes be about Ana Nicole Smith, the right is for reporter, so she was a star, like other of celebrities that may be she liked scrutiny for fame. But what is going to happen to her witnesses like this poor man?(Nuncio's driver) Maybe he wants to be anonymously and relax in his individual life. Law has to add a bill to itself about individual life again.

Thank you

[no title]

     Dose the public need to know a senator’s sexual orientation? When a famous person Dies , does the public have the right to all details? The news reporters are eagerly reporting about famous people’s private lives, in our Society the public should respect the person’s privacy right. The public should not invaded somebody’s privacy. I Belive, the public need to know some information about the politician’s lives, but it could not include their private lives, the public need to know about their educations, cultures, believes, and their experiences, because they work for government, and make decision for our country. It is embarrassing that news always report private information about the politician’s lives. When Jennifor Flowers told her story, about 12 years affair with President Clinton, the Net works, and CNN reported the story. It was not right; was unfaithful for his family. and encroach their privacy. Every one knows Jennifer wanted become famous, and earns some money. This Unfaithful reporting campere by the public figures too, recently, we had a lot of information about Anna Nicole Smith’s death on news, her mother and her lawyer was fighting for, if her body braid in Bahamas or Texas. The news analyzed every details of her privet life. She was death and it was not right to report that private information. The court in Florida was open to the public. They show a video that Anna was talking about her mother (Anna was suffering about his son’s death, and telling some bad words about her mother) it was embarrassing. Her mother suffered, anguish that she said” that was not my daughter”. The news reported these Sensational news about the move stars to appeal many people. In comparison the ordinary people are not on TV camera, their right for privacy has been respected as a member of society, until they respected the law of the United States and do not make a mistake against the law. In conclusion I hope the news will respect the people’s privet right and have more useful Information about politician’s life. We want watch the legitimate news that respect the public figures and to understand how better vote for a senator ,it means we need to know about his or her education, and what is his suggestion for developing peaceful environment , work for job less people and education for all members of our society.

Need to Know or Want to Know

     People want to know about other’s a trifling matters. Therefore all the media broadcasts trifling news. In my opinion, the media shouldn’t have to broadcast to people about a senator’s sexual orientation or how famous person died because it is their privacy, and people do not have to know about that. Even if they want to know, it is violation of other people’s privacies. No one can interfere in other’s private concerns. If there is a line that representing the difference between ‘want to know’ and ‘need to know, then it will be how that news will affect to audience. If the news will affect to audience’s life, then it is something that people ‘need to know’, but if it is not, then it is just something that people ‘want to know’.

[no title]

     Nowadays, there is a controversial about how much the public has right to know about public figures. Some people feel that things about famous people we have right to know everything about them. Some people think celebrities should be left along. In my opinion, the public don’t have right to know about the private lives of famous people. The public dose not needs to know a senator’s sexual orientation. The public should not know which public figures are unfaithful to their spouses. When a famous person dies, the public have no right to all the details. These things we don’t need to know, just things we want to know. First, the public does not need to know a senator’s sexual orientation. A senator makes laws, help to build useful road and build school for community, helps citizens to get better lives. A senator’s sexual orientation does not affect how he or she performs his or her job. When he or she makes those decisions nothing to do about he or she is a gay or a straight person. On the other hand, we need to know: does a senator have ability to run the government? Does a senator know what the right thing that needs to do is? Does a senator care for citizen’s lives and benefit? Does a senator have high character quality? All of those things public needs to know. Then, in working hours, a senator runs government, after working hours he or she just is normal person, he or she has right to enjoy private life like everybody else. In the meantime, a senator qualifies his or her position relies on how he or she performs in the senate not his or her sexual orientation. Next, public shouldn’t know which public figures are unfaithful to their spouses. Public figures beside their fame, they are human being. Every human being might make mistake, marriage is one of their status. Alike average people, sometimes, public figures may have family issues or marriage problems. If something is wrong in their family or when some problems appear, they should solve those problems like family issues, not public’s business. So, public don’t need to know if public figures are faithful or unfaithful to their spouses. If public nonstop hunt the detail, maybe make more problem. People ask yourself: if there is problem between you and your spouse, do you want a lot of people to know? Do you want to explain this problem to other people who not relevant? Maybe you want solve it quietly. So, so do public figures. At last, when a famous person dead, the public does not have right to all the details. Famous people, they are people, when they died, everything finished physically, everything left for their friends and relative. We can imagine the pain of family members who lost their loved one. The friends and family members as they are arranging the funeral as they are dealing with cameras and reporters. Furthermore, the cruelest thing is the peace of passed away person is deprived. For example, since Ana Nicole Smith death, we are being bombarded by information about her, her house, her baby; her baby’s potential father from the mass media everyday. Ana Nicole Smith news is major news of this period. We do need to know so detail about her. However, reporters still dig everything related about her. The poor grandmother lost grandson and daughter in short time. She wants her own grandbaby. Can the ongoing hounding help her? Poor baby, who cares for her more than the benefit from her? Both of them will be hurt by all conflicts. The public should give them a little bit peace now. In addition, famous people are normal human beings; they have normal human being’s need: private lives. People become famous because their jobs or status. Behind their jobs or status, they have personal life; they have as many selves as they do different social roles. Sometimes, they want spend time with someone without camera besiege. The jobs and status bring them a lot of stress and pressure; therefore, they need more peace and space than normal people. Most important of all, it is not fair that people are emphasizing their own private lives while they are invading public figure’s private lives. Maybe not everybody agree with me, but I think that the public don’t have right to know about the private lives of famous people. We want to know these things just because people like gossip.

Is this privacy or not?

     There is a question, "Does the public need to know a senator's sexual orientation?". I think the public do not need to know the senator's sexual orientation because it is private for the person. If the senator does not come in the open his/her sexual orientation or he/she pretends own sex that is going to be a private, therefore it should not be reported because it would hurt the person if it is reported. Otherwise the person is opened sexual orientation that is not a private because he/she is not pretended about own sex, and so it does not matter be reported about the person's sex. If I draw the line between an individual's right to privacy and the press' right to report information to famous people, I would draw the line between at the business and not at the business. At the business as on TV, the famous people have a will on the TV, so it is the press' right to report information, however the people are not at the business, it is an individual's right to privacy because they do not have an intention to report on TV. I think the line is not different between public figures and ordinary people because we are human and all the people have a right to private. I think these are private things that how much money I have, who I am seeing with and where my house is, if people do not tell these things the others. In my opinion, it is different must be privacy or not by people do not want to tell their story or want to tell.

News and Reports

     I don't think the public has right to information about celebrities' affairs from television or newspapers for two reasons. First, some reports are shortsighted, and the report doesn't have correct information. For example, from the article, a magazine that belonged a suspect is an important evidence for a murder case of a retied minister's. However, a reporter attached importance to a gun and his car's condition, and the reporter didn't focus on the magazine. The case makes my mind distrust televisions or newspapers information because I think the case is a example that shows mass medias are not always have a truth or important information. I'm also think that is not good for an audience. Second, I don't trust stories from someone who wants to get a lot of money form a network company. For example, when Gennifer Flowers who from the article sold a story about President Bill Chinton to the tabloid Star first, another tabloids and news programs' correspondents envied Star because they wanted to get the story than another. I think correspondents may pay a large amount of money for a new story belongs a celebrity's murder case, and I also think a person who has the story might be change the story to more interesting. I can't trust that kind of the stories. For the above reasons, I don't think I can get truth of a murder is connected with celebrities from mass medias. I always think about celebrities' privacy when I see news about them because mass medias show any information of the person concerned with a happening such as the person's life history. I don't like to see that kind of information because the report isn't necessarily need, but I even think that mass medias want to find why the parson was murdered or committed murder. That's probably way the media shows a lot of information of celebrities.