Private lives of public figures is public property...

When I was fuming over the hue and cry over the Baby B, its assumed time of arrival and mode of arrival and not to forget place of arrival, and the doctor and what time the appointment was given etc I was reminded of an inter – collegiate debate competition, the topic of which was Private Lives of Public Figures is Public Property. It was an interesting time and I had the opportunity to debate on both sides, for and against the topic.

The extent to which the media are legally free to investigate and publish details of public figures' private lives varies from country to country. 

Journalism today thrives on voyeurism to the extent that they are obsessed with what the celebrity has worn, who he or she meets, what is their lucky mascot, what colors are their lucky colors, who they date, where they ate and the list is never ending.

Yes people in power / limelight have a double-edged sword hanging over them. They cannot lead a bad example to the youth who idolize and worship them hence am against any of these big wigs smoking and drinking themselves silly in public places. However, just because they are there in that spotlight, journalists cannot probe into their personal lives by chasing and shadowing their every move.  Yet there are some who seek this status knowing that it will bring attention to their private lives – pop stars, footballers, etc. Constant scrutiny is the price of fame. Many celebrities actively seek media exposure in order to advance their careers, revealing many aspects of their personal lives; once success has been bought in such a fashion it is hypocritical to complain of "press intrusion" into those few aspects the star would prefer to remain hidden.

The sting operation by an Andhra TV channel which resulted in the resignation of the state Governor and veteran politician Narain Dutt Tewari goes on to indicate that those in public life in future will have to be extremely careful about what they do in private. Bill Clinton got into deep trouble over his numerous involvements and the Monica Lewinsky affair continues to haunt him to this day. The Italian Prime Minister has similarly suffered a huge setback because of his sexual involvement with so many women. Tiger Woods, arguably the best athlete of the decade is facing the music for his alleged relationships with a whole lot of women.

But In India, for some odd reasons, personal lives of so many top politicians had always remained out of media’s purview in what is a self regulated omission of such news. It is only now that Jawaharlal Nehru’s extreme fondness for Lady Edwina Mountbatten is figuring in a big way in newspapers, magazines and books. 

KIRK Douglas, the famous American actor, once performed some undignified antics before a home motion picture camera for the benefit of his friends. However, when the recording was sought to be put up for public exhibition, the actor approached the court on the ground that his right to privacy was being violated. The plea was upheld.

Values and concepts of morality change with the times and so do people's expectations of the media. The private lives of John F. Kennedy and Jawaharlal Nehru were once treated as taboo by the media because people did not want their heroes to be diminished in stature. But today’s Americans would never have excused their press if it had not worked overtime to expose Gary Hart, a presidential aspirant.

The issue, therefore, boils down to the rules the print media must follow when it covers the private lives of celebrities. “Public figures must either be careful or not bother about what is written about them in the press,” said Mr Russi Karanjia, one of India’s seniormost and well-known journalists. In today’s world it is just not feasible for pubic figures to secure privacy. Their telephones can be tapped for a few thousand rupees and-a private detective can get all the information one wants about their private lives without their even knowing. Celebrities in quest of privacy must therefore make sure that they do not behave in a manner which they can be criticised in the press.

The Blitz editor also felt that a kind of ‘moral glasnost’ prevails in the country now. This makes the issue of press forays into the private lives of public figures irrelevant. “Why should celebrities be embarrassed about the way they live? As a journalist, the people expect me to tell them everything.”

I do believe that there is a public character to the private lives of personalities. Giving an illustration, Mr. Karanjia said the friendship between Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten had “changed the course of Indian history”. Similarly, he felt that there was nothing wrong with the manner in which the press had covered Mukesh Aggarwal’s suicide since “the life of a good, hardworking man had been destroyed.”

However, I also feel that along with freedom comes responsibility. The intention of a journalist, when he probes personal lives, is very important. I would also not give a clean chit to the public. People cannot demand information for vicarious pleasure.”

Further, if the public interest demanded exposure of private lives, I don’t think there should be any objection. Citing an example, the press had recently published information that some army officers faced court martial for their alleged dalliances with wives of juniors. Ruling out censorship of any kind, the journalists themselves should make the fine distinction between what is in the public interest and what is trivial.

Public figures are public for a reason. Much of their lives is publicly known, and so seeing into their private lives is unnecessary. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is more difficult. Why bother spending the extra effort to dig into a public figure's private life, when so much information is available from the public life? How would you feel if your private (and frequently embarrassing) affairs were being broadcast all over the news? It would be highly embarrassing and excessively humiliating. It is no different for public figures. No one deserves that kind of humiliation.

And so, back to our question: are public figures entitled to private lives? Well, there’s no easy ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to that one. But there are some rules that the Indian media have, on the whole, adhered to all these years. The logic was that film stars and other entertainment celebrities had no problems discussing their private lives in their interviews. They happily talked about their boyfriends/husbands, dished the dirt on their break-ups, and announced their engagements/weddings with much fanfare (think John Abraham and Bipasha Basu or Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya). So given that they themselves opened the door to their homes, in a manner of speaking, they had no right to complain if we all turned into Peeping Toms. But then to conjecture the marriage to a tree etc was taking it a bit too far (not all open their doors some journalists even fumed at not having access to the wedding fotos and they had to be forcibly evicted from around the wedding venue).

But when it came to politicians, the game was played by different rules. As long as politicians didn’t bring their wives and families into the public domain, journalists steered clear of reporting on their private lives, no matter how tangled they might be. As long as their private lives didn’t impact on how they performed their public duties, we took the line that it was no one’s business but their own whom they did or did not sleep with. In other words, if a politician was dating someone, it wasn’t a legitimate news story. If some woman was using him for his money so be it. Suddenly all of this seems to be changing.  The old rules are in the process of being archived as the tabloidization of our media continues apace. Now, it seems that even mainstream publications have no problem running speculative stories about the private lives of politicians, all of them brimming over with unproven rumours and unverified gossip. 

The explanation now seems to be that anyone who enters public life should get used to the concept of public scrutiny at all times. If you are a public figure, well, then your entire life should be lived out in public. And the public has the right to take an interest in whatever part of your life they see fit. In other words, public interest is defined as anything that the public is interested in.

Specially People in India have always been interested in the lives of the famous. And our Media is also not behind, they cover every personal details of the celebrities like the celebrity events such as a child's birth to famous parents, a marriage, or some parties on TV make prime time news. Further People want to know more because more information is available through magazines and now mainly the internet.

Far from being the ‘watchdog’ of democracy, they argue the Indian media is now enslaved to the same foibles as the western media, hounding celebrities and politicians 24 hours a day and sacrificing decency and editorial judgment along the way. One aspect of this debate relates to the question of privacy, and the degree to which a free press should be allowed to intrude on the private lives of public figures. Whilst some argue that there should be no boundaries for a free press, others suggest that checks and balances must be established to enable a media fit for purpose.