The Respect for Privacy Request vs. The Public's Right To Know!

Everyone who's ever followed an Entertainment Tonight news (and I use the term “news” sparingly) program for more than one day or read anything about the private life of Elvis has probably gotten a glimpse of to what extent celebrities will go in order to protect their privacy.

Elvis rented out entire amusement parks at night just for his entourage to avoid public crowds and the mobs of fans associated with his fame.

Entertainment Tonight and other tabloid broadcasts as well as print outlets for years have shown celebrities in all fields hiding behind sunglasses, ball caps, wigs and an incredible amount of other paraphernalia in order to fool paparazzi and over-eager fans.

The questions are: 1.) How much privacy can a celebrity expect compared to an average person with no special status and 2.) How much information about a person of notoriety is the public actually entitled to know?

Years ago, when I was first asked, “please respect my privacy and do not broadcast what I've told you,” by a member of that famed status, I began wondering where the boundary lines were and who might be the authority to draw up these “Do Not Cross” perimeters.

Is it the celebrity who owns the right to say, “this is personal and you shall not tread here”? Or is it the media who push harder and harder looking for something that is newsworthy, and, sometimes even regardless of it's newsworthy status, something that is a “scoop” the other media don't yet have?

In the news business we often talk about “the public's right to know” as if the phrase, once uttered, has some legal and binding authority. But is there any such “right” the public has with regard to another's personal and private life?

Certainly an argument can be made that with the mere act of attempting to obtain a “celebrity status” and amass fans by the millions, one is somewhat renouncing a part, if not all, of their privacy. One just can't ask fans (an abbreviated word of “fanatic”) for their devotion and loyalty, to spend, spend, spend both in monetary terms as well as hours of their time worshiping everything the famed person does and then turn off those fans like a light switch when it no longer suits the purpose under some assumed cloak of “privacy.”

On the other hand, common decency, which should prevail from the media in certain situations, such as the death of a celebrity's family member, or delicate news of a medical condition doesn't always seem to matter in the balance between respect and selling content.

What is “private” and what is “personal” can be argued to be indefinable in any standardization and more probably is so variable dependent upon circumstances and those involved as to ever be defined.

Take, for instance, a married couple who's combined careers have been intermingled as much or more as they have been separate. Certainly a nasty divorce between that couple could have some things they'd rather have left alone, but can they really say it's a “private matter” when so much of the marriage and it's personal delicacies were a major part of creating the lifestyle and career success of the couple long before any divorce?

When a celebrity couple invites media coverage of a gala wedding, is it then fair to say they don't want media coverage during a later breakup of that much vaunted marriage ceremony and it's aftermath?

Certainly fans have a right to know some of a celebrity’s current situation regardless of how painful it may be. It's what the famed have traded away in the bargain for their exalted state. Fans think of these famed individuals as “friends” or even more. The most minute details of the (famed) person are published and heralded and quite often even embellished in attempts to help cement the fans and to achieve loyalty. Even though these iconic figures may know nothing about any particular fan, causing a very lop-sided friendship, one cannot say it is unrequited. Remember, the star sought the status which caused the relationship. The star continues to produce (films, records, books, etc.) which can, by any account, be considered as building the relationship or friendship with the fan.

As a media representative, I still get a frequent amount of “Please Respect Our Privacy” requests and although I empathize with the requester, we also have an assumed “Duty to the Public” to provide news coverage. Unfortunately, what constitutes “news” for the public is not always about some band's latest CD release or their upcoming summer tour. Sometimes “news” is about them, their lives, their families, their ups and, certainly, their downs.

Is the break up and/or divorce of a bluegrass couple really news? What are the ethical boundaries? If the spouse of the celebrity had never previously been in the spotlight – had never contributed to the overall success of the other – then certainly one could say that the “news-worthiness” of the information is questionable. However, if each of them worked for a number of years in the same band and the personal breakup spills over into the band makeup, plans, future, etc. then certainly the quality of “news-worthy” status of this information is drastically different.

Regardless of the personal side of such a scenario, if the demise of the band occurs, then certainly there is news content to be published and how far that extends into the personal side is dependent upon the type of coverage and publication. Journalistic ethics dictate that a reporter not even inquire into personal lives UNLESS doing so is relevant to the story. Relevancy is the key.

This may be at least one of the causes of confusion for the subject(s) of such news stories.

For a number of years we've been counseled by job coaches to be very wary of what we post or even what friends may post about us on the Internet. Many employers screen job candidates using social media searches prior to any expensive background check. Also, there are several documented cases where individuals, who've held a job for lengthy periods, have then been terminated from employment due to on-line discoveries of what a company may deem as inappropriate behavior for their company standards.

It stands to reason that a person with fame should be doubly cautious about postings on social media. It may be their “personal” page, but “personal” does not equate with “private”. The social media is built upon the concept of “SHARING” and even though something may be considered by the individual to be very personal, once it reaches the social media, it's fair game for anyone who can access it by any means.

News reporters are savvy people, and there isn't a one who hasn't used information gleaned from Twitter, Facebook or other Internet content. Some go well beyond that as an occasional method of news gathering and actually spend hours upon hours scanning various known sites that may contain hot news items.

So where would an artist even begin to think that they might have a right to request a “Respect of Privacy” consideration after they, themselves have leaked even a small portion of a news item via their tweets or Facebook status updates? When a person finds themselves in this situation, where something so personal to them wants so much to become public, one thing to remember is what is often attributed to P.T. Barnum, Will Rogers, W.C. Fields, Mae West and scores of others ... "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right"… meaning that there is no such thing as bad press.

Like many have already discovered, once a situation like this develops, the subject of the concern is far better off to release the news through official channels and thereby attempt to control the accuracy of information and the slant of the story rather than maintaining a conspiracy of silence behind “Privacy Issues”.

Another thing to remember, just as Abraham Lincoln did in a speech before becoming the 16^th U.S. President, “This too shall pass. How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! -- how consoling in the depths of affliction!”