Media Digging up Dirt on people

[Jambo82]

Question: Do you think the media should stay out of the sexual history of people of power? Whether they be celebrities, important businessmen, politicians, etc.

If you think that information is fair game, is it acceptable to attack both women and men for the same stuff?

 

[Colleen27]

I think there's a difference between investigative journalism in the public interest - ie finding out important information about a politician's background or connections - and tabloid sensationalism, and sadly, I think we get far more of the latter than the former. There's no reason the media should be reporting on the sex lives of celebrities, businessmen, etc. at all. That's none of the general public's business.

I think there's more potential for that type of information to be relevant regarding politicians as an indication of overall character, and that gets into some tough gray area as far as how much is justifiable and where the line should be.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

I do think they take it to far.

 

[DawnCt1]

Unless they violated the law, I don't care what they did when they were not in public office. If they use their office to take advantage of someone who reports to them, work for them, etc, then yes, we have a right to know, but what someone did in high school or college, I don't care.

 

[happygirl]

I care, I don;t want someone in office that has a lack of morals

 

[LukenDC]

In general, I do think that the media should become more respectful of the privacy of public figures. We learned more about President Reagan's colon and Prince Charles' sexual fantasies than was necessary. The press and paparazzi hunt some public figures like animals and that is simply wrong.

In some instances, however, I think that a public figure's private affairs are relevant. For example, if a stridently anti-gay political or religious figure is secretly engaging in the very acts that he condemns, then I do think that the press has a responsibility to report that. If the president has a medical condition that could impair his or her ability to fulfill the duties of the job, then that too is relevant.

 

[Tinkermommy]

I really don't care who people sleep with from a personal point of view.

For politicians, if they are misusing their position, flying their lover around using public funds, giving them "consultant jobs" etc. Then it is a matter for the public since they are abusing the job they are holding.

 

[Missy1961]

I care, I don;t want someone in office that has a lack of morals

Yes, but who gets to judge that? Your lack of morals may not equal mine.

 

[Missy1961]

I really don't care who people sleep with from a personal point of view.

For politicians, if they are misusing their position, flying their lover around using public funds, giving them "consultant jobs" etc. Then it is a matter for the public since they are abusing the job they are holding.

Excellent points. The only reason why I care.

 

[bicker]

I think that the American public's appetite for salacious and sensationalistic media invasion into people's private lives has made it such that only the most power-hungry self-absorbed people are willing to be our public servants.

 

[Scurvy]

I think it depends. For me, I don't care about the personal details of a politician or celebrity's life - unless they are using their personal life as a selling point or their personal life actually clashes with their platform. I don't care what my favorite celebrity does when he isn't on stage if he chooses not to publicize his personal life. I do think his personal life becomes fair game if he's "selling himelf" based on his image as a family man but is actually cheating with everything that moves. The same goes for politicians. If a politician is trotting his family out for media appearances and carrying on about honesty and family values but is actually lying and cheating, then that's relevant. And of course if they are misusing funds (whether that's because of a sexual relationship or something else) that's a huge problem.

 

[Magpie]

I think it depends. For me, I don't care about the personal details of a politician or celebrity's life - unless they are using their personal life as a selling point or their personal life actually clashes with their platform. I don't care what my favorite celebrity does when he isn't on stage if he chooses not to publicize his personal life. I do think his personal life becomes fair game if he's "selling himelf" based on his image as a family man but is actually cheating with everything that moves. The same goes for politicians. If a politician is trotting his family out for media appearances and carrying on about honesty and family values but is actually lying and cheating, then that's relevant. And of course if they are misusing funds (whether that's because of a sexual relationship or something else) that's a huge problem.

I agree!

 

[shirleyb]

For so many people not caring, there sure was a lot of discussion of Tiger Woods.

 

[The Mayor]

I care, I don;t want someone in office that has a lack of morals

That would pretty much eliminate 99% of them

 

[PghLybrt]

In some instances, however, I think that a public figure's private affairs are relevant. For example, if a stridently anti-gay political or religious figure is secretly engaging in the very acts that he condemns, then I do think that the press has a responsibility to report that. .

 

[The Mayor]

Personally I could give a rats behind what happened to any celebrity, Charlie Sheen can flip out on as many hookers he wants, Michael Jackson life or death had no bearing on me.

I would tend to care more about "important businessmen/woman" if they are controlling large companies that have a bearing on the econimic climate of our country but it wouldn't be who they were sleeping with. More about if they were having unscrupulous dealings.

Politicians should be held to a higher standard and if they have skeletons in their closet they should know the media circus they will encounter and should not run for public office. With so much multimedia technology availble today they should know better.

 

[Holly]

In general, I do think that the media should become more respectful of the privacy of public figures. We learned more about President Reagan's colon and Prince Charles' sexual fantasies than was necessary. The press and paparazzi hunt some public figures like animals and that is simply wrong.

In some instances, however, I think that a public figure's private affairs are relevant. For example, if a stridently anti-gay political or religious figure is secretly engaging in the very acts that he condemns, then I do think that the press has a responsibility to report that. If the president has a medical condition that could impair his or her ability to fulfill the duties of the job, then that too is relevant.

 

[Jambo82]

I think it depends. For me, I don't care about the personal details of a politician or celebrity's life - unless they are using their personal life as a selling point or their personal life actually clashes with their platform. I don't care what my favorite celebrity does when he isn't on stage if he chooses not to publicize his personal life. I do think his personal life becomes fair game if he's "selling himelf" based on his image as a family man but is actually cheating with everything that moves. The same goes for politicians. If a politician is trotting his family out for media appearances and carrying on about honesty and family values but is actually lying and cheating, then that's relevant. And of course if they are misusing funds (whether that's because of a sexual relationship or something else) that's a huge problem.

A bit sexist no? What if it's a her?

 

[Scurvy]

A bit sexist no? What if it's a her?

No, it isn't sexist. I'd feel the same way about women. I just said it the way I did because my favorite celebrities are male. I didn't see the need to specify "he or she" in place of "he", or "his or hers" in place of "his", or "family person" in place of "family man". But feel free to mentally substitute those words if you'd like.

 

[DWGal210]

That would pretty much eliminate 99% of them

I was JUST going to post this!! So true!!!