Public Figures and the Media

[Burpey]

Personally, I feel that they are sometimes too intrusive and do not allow celbrities to have any privacy. I am particularly outraged with the recent suicide attempt made by NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden. I do not condone his actions but I think the media, particularly the Daily Telegraph, were in the wrong. They did not forgive his actions, but rather kept criticsing Mr Brogden. This led him to attempt to commit suicide.

This shows the power of the media and the disatrous effect they can have on people's lives. Also, I feel many sportspeople are criticised for actions that are not at all related to sport. i was disgusted with the way the media handled the Wayne Carey/Glen Archer incident a couple of years ago.

Anyway, what are your thought on the media ? Too intrusive or just doing their job ?

[Shounak]

Doing their job..

People pay good money for it.. Photo's of princess Di were fetching hundreds of thousands of pounds..

There's a TV show, forgot what it's called, but they stalk celebrities. The entertainment is watching the reactions of the celebrities and sometimes catching them doing stupid things. Usually the celeb'll tell them to **** off, but they keep getting followed around. Pathetic I know. But the celebrities do get paid millions of dollars to make up for it.

It's part of the job description IMO. A lot of people would happily take that much attention for their kind of lifestyle/money.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not sure what the problem with the Brogden thing is really. Why should the print media forgive someone for something? That's not really their job.

I'd agree that there are times when sections of the media goes too far in pushing for a story, such as stalking celebrities with a camera, and trying to make the most out of tragic situations. I remember in particular events like the Columbine Massacre, where reporters were showing up at the funerals of the victims to ask the parents for opinions on the killers. I mean, what the hell?

The Brogden thing seems fine to me. If he wants to attempt to commit suicide because he did something outrageously stupid as a public figure and ruined his life in the process, you can't blame the media for it.

[Dasa]

^Indeed. What annoys me now though is suddenly Brogden has become this almost heroic figure because he attempted suicide...everyone has suddenly forgotten about his previous transgressions. To be very cynical, it could almost be said that his suicide attempt was so that his image would be 'positive' again.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Not sure what the problem with the Brogden thing is really. Why should the print media forgive someone for something? That's not really their job.

I'd agree that there are times when sections of the media goes too far in pushing for a story, such as stalking celebrities with a camera, and trying to make the most out of tragic situations. I remember in particular events like the Columbine Massacre, where reporters were showing up at the funerals of the victims to ask the parents for opinions on the killers. I mean, what the hell?

The Brogden thing seems fine to me. If he wants to attempt to commit suicide because he did something outrageously stupid as a public figure and ruined his life in the process, you can't blame the media for it.

I'd be interested to see Voltman's view on this.

For mine, there is too much intrusion. But a lot of it is just ridiculous over-exposure that no-one really cares about. I remember a few weeks ago there was an article in the paper how Nathan Buckley (an AFL player) had just bought a house - not in the Property section, but in the News part of the paper. Who could care?

[Sir Redman]

There was a thread on this a while ago..

In my opinion, the circumstances change depending on the person. If, for example, photographers follow around someone who is famous for being famous - over here Nicky Watson is an example, she's never done anything but everyone knows who she is - then that is alright. That person has chosen to live their life in the public eye and they should suffer the consequences of it.

On the other hand, imagine someone who is famous because he/she is a great actor. They love their job, but have no interest in all the rubbish that comes with being famous. They don't partake in blatant publicity stunts or endorse products to gain cash - basically, the only time they are in the public eye is in their movies. In this case, the paparazzi has no right whatsoever to invade their private life.

In general I'm against it. The only people who can't complain about it are the Paris Hilton types, or the actors/singers/sportsmen who make deliberate attempts to gain fame other than by doing what they are good at.

[Shounak]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

I remember a few weeks ago there was an article in the paper how Nathan Buckley (an AFL player) had just bought a house - not in the Property section, but in the News part of the paper. Who could care?

People do care. They put it in there for a reason.

I think the same thing whenever I see a Womans Day, New Idea or whatever else. Who could care?

The fact is, people do and it's a multi-million dollar business...

[DJellett]

Being a bit of a publi figure myself (I have a figure and i go out in public) I find it uplifting when people come up to me and say "Hey, aren't you tha dude from that TV show?"

Even funnier when I'm like "No, leave me a alone"

However, it can go too far.

Word.

[Smudge]

Right, give me some time on this one.

Firstly, let me state I'm perhaps a little bit too moralistic to ever become a real tabloid journalist. In the case of John Brogden: yes, he's a public figure; yes, he made some monumental gaffes and yes, he's had a rather public fall from grace. But, considering it's a fairly standard ethical rule in journalism that we don't report suicides (at least, it's the case in New Zealand), I find the public hounding of Brogden rests somewhat uncomfortably with me. However, this does not include editorials and opinion pieces.

The aspects that do concern me are the ``race for a story'' that requires journalists of all different forms (print, radio, television, internet et al) to call him, loiter outside his house, sort through his garbage (note: no idea my last suggestion has happened, but I wouldn't be surprised). Essentially, they are trying to get an interview with someone who is mentally unstable - which he is by default, after trying to commit suicide.

This is one of the reasons I'm glad I'm getting out of the police/emergency services reporting that I'm doing at the moment and moving into sports and horse racing - there's such a thing as people's privacy, and while someone's public profile alters the boundaries somewhat, they exist for everyone.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I remember in particular events like the Columbine Massacre, where reporters were showing up at the funerals of the victims to ask the parents for opinions on the killers. I mean, what the hell?

I had a good insight into the flipside of this the other day - admittedly on a much lower scale.

A couple of weeks back, my friend's father died when he stepped on a skylight on a roof at his workplace. The family lived in a small town - Ashburton - and the name was released by the police to the local paper, which, incidentally, I used to work for. This wasn't so much the problem, but a few days later, a similar accident happened in the North Island. The reporter at the Ashburton Guardian then called up my mate's mother and started to ask her questions like ``Just wondering what your thoughts on this are?'', ``Don't you think it's strange that two accidents like this have happened in such a short space of time?'' and so on. My mate's mother burst into tears - after all, I don't think her husband had even been buried by that stage.

Personally, in many cases, I dread making phone calls to the family of the very recently departed - I feel cheap and nasty.

Kinda like when I get paid to strip at the rest home...

[age_master]

Originally Posted by shounak

Pathetic I know. But the celebrities do get paid millions of dollars to make up for it.

yep, and the celebrities still get idolised despite all the bad stuff they get caught doing....

[age_master]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

The Brogden thing seems fine to me. If he wants to attempt to commit suicide because he did something outrageously stupid as a public figure and ruined his life in the process, you can't blame the media for it.

yeah i agree with that, as a public figure like that you are on the job 24x7

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by shounak

People do care. They put it in there for a reason.

I think the same thing whenever I see a Womans Day, New Idea or whatever else. Who could care?

The fact is, people do and it's a multi-million dollar business...

There is a price to pay for fame and the trashy women's mags is part of that price.

[Linda]

Theres no doubt in my mind, the Brogden thing was OTT in this state at least, especially after the suicide attempt, and I assume it was the same in the rest outside NSW. Simply for the reason that 90% of people wouldnt have known who he was before it all happened, so it shouldnt really concern us.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Voltman

Personally, in many cases, I dread making phone calls to the family of the very recently departed - I feel cheap and nasty.

Kinda like when I get paid to strip at the rest home...

Didn't really want to think of that

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Linda

Theres no doubt in my mind, the Brogden thing was OTT in this state at least, especially after the suicide attempt, and I assume it was the same in the rest outside NSW. Simply for the reason that 90% of people wouldnt have known who he was before it all happened, so it shouldnt really concern us.

You don't think it should concern you if the opposition leader in another Australian state makes a racist joke at the expense of the wife of the premier and then tries to kill himself?

What on earth is news then?