Most of the people (many unfortunately on the media where this should not happen) speculate out loud as though they are speaking facts...at least, that is how they are often heard. I am a great fan of Tiger Woods, the golfer; I have no interest in looking through keyholes or intruding into his personal life.
It isn't that I am without understanding as to why people like to read People Magazine or live vicariously though their latched onto idols. What escapes me is that they have been taught by the moneymaking media that they have a right to know all the intimate details of anyone who appears before the public in movies, politics, sports or otherwise. Why should they have any more right to know about someone's personal life just because their profession is public. This is a hype made possible by the profiters of the intrusive tactics of the Paparazzi and others who feed to gossip magazines. Yet if you told the readers of such that they are just nosy gossips who would be angry if they were exposed in the same fashion, they would probably rationalize that it would be different. But it really isn't. Movie stars have learned (or been told ) to accept the intrusions as a part of their job...but should it be?
Unless I am mistaken, 'the right to know' was intended to speak to politics and government and is intended to allow people to be informed about things that directly touch their lives. Why Tiger Woods had an accident in his car does not directly effect my life. Nor do the messy divorces, interaction with law enforcement, unless they are political figures or in some way would be performing a direct service to me such as surgery, etc.) effect my life in any way.
At this point, any suggestions in cleaning up society would cost some people jobs. Should that stop us from trying to make our society a better place in which to live? a safer place, a more private place where it is appropriate? For someone else's view on the subject, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment