In "Why a celebrity divorce has Chinese social media buzzing". The story of Wang Baoqiang, a Chinese actor, breaking up with his low-profile wife who allegedly has an affair with his agent is a talk of the town in China (2016). According to the online social media, this story becomes a top trending topic, with 5 billion times of views.
_______________________________________
My Yes/No question is:
Is it okay for the journalists to ask public figures about their personal life?
My answer is:
No, it's not if they don't want to answer.
This reminds me of celebrity magazines' headlines and some TV programs, most of the questions which the famous people, especially TV stars are asked is about their private life rather than their work. Are you planning to get married? How much children you are planning to have? Why don't you upgrade the level of your relationship with your lover? Is there a third person messing up your marital relationship? These questions are just some examples. Most of the celebrities are likely to refuse to answer, but this even makes the interviewers ask them more frequently and raise more curiosity of the audience. Some of them figure this out by sitting in the conference room and informing everyone about their divorce, pregnancy and so on as it is their duty to do so.
In Thailand, it seems to be so usual to ask personal life. The interviewers never care whether they violate rights to privacy or not. They might feel like this is a win-win situation. I mean they get paid from the story of the famous ones and the famous ones become more popular because of the news. Also, most audience enjoy watching and reading something like this. This is why the publishing companies buy this kind of news with decent price.
Even I think there is no problem in the case that public figures are willing to respond these sensitive but not useful questions. However, I don't support those publishers nor interviewers to do this. I still think that it's not okay to ask something too personal and sensitive. I think even a public figure still need personal space. But, I have to admit that sometimes I enjoy reading the gossip news too. What a self-contradiction I am. What about you? What is a fine line between rights to know and rights to privacy?
___________
Reference
Why a celebrity divorce has Chinese social media buzzing. (2016, August 16). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37091685
For me, I always reading gossip star news, but I don't support any reporters or any publisher who ask and publish somethings too personality, in this, I means we can know somethings of some favorite stars because they are public persons, but everyone has a personal space. Thus, the publisher and the reporter are important person who must realize their ethic. They have to concern what news is suitable to know or not. In the others side, readers should select the news to read as well, at least, think before share anythings on social media.
ReplyDeleteI think it's fine as long as they have a consent. If the public figure agrees to answer, then there is no problem. However, if he or she refuses, the interviewer should not insist on asking. This makes me think of similar case. Should the government spy on their citizens?
ReplyDeleteLet's discuss a simple example, security camera. They are everywhere. If the government wanted to, they can track us and know every of our movement. Should it be banned? They are invading our personal information. However, you would agree that they are necessary for capturing thieves or escaping culprit. Thus, it is assumed that everyone agree to have security cameras installed. The government has the citizens' consents to know their whereabout.
This is an easy case. However, would you feel the same if the government know everything about your conversations through social media, or phone? The government might argue it's for security purpose. You'd never know if someone's a terrorist!
Now, things seem a bit uncomfortable. You might agree that it's still acceptable. It might alleviate human trafficking and drug problems. The police might capture someones thanks to this useful information regarding their hideouts or secret rendezvous.
Let's take it to the next step. What if the government tracks all of your internet uses. The government has influence over internet and communication. It might not be that hard to access some of your internet browsing record. They might get your credit card numbers, your facebook password, or the files on your computer. But of course, all of this is for safety. Do you still agree to let invade your personal space? Where is the line?
For me, all of my information shouldn't be publicized by all means unless I allow them to. Even installing security camera around my house needs my consent. It is something that seems simple from the surface, but it can get nasty if we overlook it. If we didn't say that they need consent, they might assume that they can do anything without our consent at all. Give somebody an inch and they will take a mile!
There is a need to combat crime, but that is not a good enough reason to justify the government being able to spy on the citizens. The law should protect citizens from excessive government spying and interfering, even if that means there is a little more crime. If the only thing that mattered were eliminating crime, there is a 100% effective solution: use extreme North Korean style monitoring and harsh punishments for every minor offence like posting a comment on Facebook. Such barbaric punishments are known to reduce the behaviour they criminalize, whether murder or free speech.
DeleteI think the healthy attitude is to assume that the government should not be allowed to do something, and require that every interference to control citizens be justified before the courts and the people, with a strong constitution ruling out many government acts.
Super stars or celebrities are people of societies. They are famous, popular, and many people know them well. People are interested about their personalities and their lives. In contrast, if they aren't famous, no one knows them, and they are just normal people who live regularly, no people would like to know about their personalities. In my opinion, they are same as us or everyone. They are humans; I mean that they should have rights to refuse to answer about their personal lives and they also should have their personal spaces. Acting and performance are their jobs in which they entertain people to enjoy and have happiness. However, it's not appropriate to ask about their personal lives if they refuse to answer that questions.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of Tiger Woods. He had the public image of good father, husband and family man, but it was all a lie. I think it was right for the media to discover and tell the truth because he was making massive profits from his false image as a famous public figure: he did not deserve to have a false reputation protected.
ReplyDeletePeople who are not in the public eye and who are not presenting an image in such a way should have their privacy respected, but if sports stars, politicians, heads of state and so on are presenting a public image that is false, I think it's good for the media to investigate and expose the truth.
And perhaps we worry too much about things like who is sleeping with whom. The French are a bit more sensible: people assume that men (and women?) with money and power are likely having sex with several people, so when it's discovered that they are, it isn't a big deal. Should it be a big deal or a surprise?
I think that the US media was right to ask President Clinton about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, and the president was wrong to lie about it. If he was pretending to be a faithful husband to Hillary as leader of the US, that false image should have been smashed. I don't think Hillary really cared that much (I suspect she knew all along), and the US shouldn't have cared, except that the president lied about it.
I agree that those who make a great deal of money from presenting a fake image should not be protected by media. The media should play a vital role in checking the fact whether it is a truth or a lie.
DeleteHowever, I think that some people are famous because of their work, I mean their ability and quality of work not because of the false public image they pretend to give. For example, Janie, a Thai actress, always represents as a morally good character of drama series. Then people recognize and expect that she is good in every aspect as she acts in the play. When there is a rumor about her misbehavior, the media reacts like she does something terribly wrong and ask her to tell the truth. In this case, I think actually she doesn't lie to audience that she is good. But it is because of the role which she performed that make people believe that she is a completely good person in the real life.
I don't know Janie, but my suspicion is that she might not have done anything very wrong. If it's just sex with various men or women (the usual thing that excites some media), that's not obviously wrong. Or is the media suggesting she's done something actually wrong?
DeleteI agree with you that it is not okay for the journalists to ask public figures about their personal life if they don't want to answer, especially win-win situation. There are a lot of gossip from actors or actresses which seems normal in Thailand. Many interviewer trend to ask superstar's private story rather than their success no matter what they prefer to talk about or not. This seems rude in the society.
ReplyDeleteAs the journalist's responsibility to convey the truthful information to people.They shouldn't put a spin on the articles they write to make others misunderstanding about somethings.The news should base on fact and shouldn't discriminating toward status,appearances or any circumstance. Even if the celebrities earned money from the fame, public attention in the media but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have their own privacy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete