Privacy vs Public Scrutiny

630 Words3 Pages
Politicians are publicly known figures that are directly involved or employed in the government. Recently, they have been receiving public and media attention more than ever. Not only their public images and behaviors have been reporting, commenting, praising, or criticizing by mass media, their private lives also has been under the spotlight. This brings the question that whether the media should respect the privacy of the politicians, not inspecting their after-work lives for whatever purpose. On this issue, I strongly believe that the media has its right to express freely, and on some cases, it has the right to expose private lives of public figures, like the politicians, to the public eye. Technically, privacy is the entitled right to everyone; however, politicians have the least privacy. Public figures of course want to state that they have a right to a private life, but nobody asked them to enter the world of politics. They took the decision to get involved in the decision-making process that has an effect on everybody in the country. As what journalist Suzannah Lessard said in an article for the Washington Monthly: “A president candidate is asking for a much greater mandate from the citizenry, and so he must tolerate a much greater sacrifice of privacy.” Because, ignoring private behavior from public figures inevitably means telling lies to the public. Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton are examples of public figures whose private lives have been invaded. Let’s add Gary Hart and his “Monkey Business Scandal” on the list. Yes, they’re proofs that “we live in a world where there is a little privacy”, as what Richard Cohen said in his article for The Washington Post. And yes, political reporters really did observe an unwritten rule: a politician’s private life was private, absent compelling evidence that personal conduct was affecting public performance.
Open Document