Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Why shouldn't people have a right to privacy?

 Just because a publicity seeking Libdem MP has named the footballer involved with the super injunction and therefore has ensured the media can smugly splash his name all over the front page, does not make it right for the privacy of an individual to be exploited in this manner.

I'm not going to name the footballer because unlike many I believe he had a case in taking out the injunction.

Why should his private life been open to public scrutiny, What does it achieve only to sell newspapers. It doesn't matter that his marriage or his relationship with his children  could be destroyed.Some smug hypocritical editor can moralise on the issue safe in the knowledge that his or her fellow editors would not publish any similar misdemeanors on their part.

Why should Tabloid newspapers  virtually blackmail people in giving them exclusives by threatening to expose someones private life.

Or to give space to some publicity seeking bonehead of either sex who slept with a "celebrity" and now wants to make  a few quid out of it or have their Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame.

The young woman who claims to have had a affair with the footballer is accused of virtual trying to blackmail in asking  for money  or she would go to the tabloids. This may be untrue but because of the result of the breaking of this injunction any person will be able to make such a threat and short of taped evidence get away with it.

Is this the sought of society we want to live in?

What has been trumpeted as the freedom of the press has been little more than that body claiming the right to poke inside the private lives of members of the public irrespective of the damage it would cause.

Yes there is a case of exposing hypocrisy:  but as some one said of Bill Clinton..
"I don't care who he slept with as long as doesn't try and tell me who I can sleep with" .
Most of the  media are claiming the footballer (And I'm still not giving his name look it up if your really that interested) would have been better of employing a publicist and riding the storm. But why should he?

Just because you are in the public eye doesn't mean that you waive your right to privacy and it certainly doesn't  mean that your family are open to the titillation of the media.

This does not mean that dishonesty and hypocrisy should not be exposed but this should only be in case such as.

  • A politician or religious figure who attacks Gay rights when carrying out a gay relationship.
  • An Editor or Media Baron who attacks the sexual infidelities of "celebrity" whilst having a similar affair. A reporter who gives the impression of moral indignity when interviewed someone when their own lifestyle is far from perfect.
  • The thousands of twitter members who paced the footballers name on the Internet without any real evidence. Who would be indignant  if a friend had exposed their peccadilloes on Facebook. 

We need a new Privacy law not to protect wrongdoers or those who have the money to go to court, But to protect us all from a media whose interest id not justice or even the moral of our nation but to sell more newspapers.

N.B. In accordance with the theme of this Blog . I will not be publishing any comment on this if you use the names of those  involved. 

No comments:

Post a Comment