Privacy For Public Officials
Privacy has become a rare commodity for public officials over the past half century. It has even gotten to the point that almost all of the information in newspapers, magazines, and television involve information about the private lives of public officials. There have been two main reasons for the personalization of politics, the first is the age-old influence of political differences, and the second factor is more novel -- the rise of the Internet. These two factors have added to the lack of privacy for public officials. Journalists now scrarable for any possible skeletons they can dig up on public officials, claiming that the public has a right to know everything about the people who represent them. The journalists claim that it is their responsibility to make sure the politicians are morally upstanding citizens. Unfortunately this has lead to many political and private lives being ruined as result of information that is presented by the press. Throughout the past 50 years the relationship between public officials and the press has gone from excellent to horrendous. All of these factors have led to the personalization of politics and made it impossible for public officials to have any kind of private life.
One of the more interesting aspects of the recent coverage of political scandals has been the press' extensive coverage of itself. Not only has the behavior of political leaders been under fire, but also the media's reporting of it. Media outlets are now more plentiful than ever, with online news sources joining those established in radio, print and television and all are competing for breaking news. The pressure to get the story, some argue, has led to the reporting of rumor and unverified information, as well as extensive coverage of personal information that violates the privacy of public figures. In the light of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal some argue that the press is more concerned with selling papers than educating the public. They argue that important stories are left unprinted to make room for sensational news such as the romantic life of politicians. Critics also note that the public's consumption of the news is declining, as many Americans become skeptical of its relevance and its origins. This view is supported by Grossman, Kumar and Rourke when they discuss the relationship between the president and the press: "Instead, journalists, now viewing themselves as under attack, take joy in uncovering the president's mistakes and highlighting what they regard as the failures and contradictions of his administration. News organizations can provide a harsh and unflattering view of any administration…" (Nelson, 235). Grossman, Kumar and Rourke support the view that the media can both create and destroy an administration depending on how they (the media) are treated by the administration.
Several societal factors have contributed to the increasingly personal nature of political news. The first is the age-old influence of political differences. Attempts to influence the public encourage biased or exaggerated claims about oneself or one's political opponent, and can lead to ad hominem attacks by those attempting to discredit the opposition. The second factor is more novel -- the rise of the Internet. While the Internet itself does not lead to any particular form of online content, the presence of online news services competing with television, radio and print journalists for stories has led to increased pressure on reporters to find exclusive information. In addition, the lack of any precedent for online journalistic ethics has led some outlets to publish rumors or other unverifiable information.
"It's hard to pinpoint just where in the past four or five decades the process began, but by now it's practically a truism to say that all media, including the online media, have come to reserable television -- or at least to pay tribute to its authority... Today, when newspapers spend much of their time reporting on "personalities" and "events" (images and soundbites) that are created for and exist solely within the media, when magazines that were once concerned primarily with the critique of politics and literature and the arts are filled with articles that mimic TV's self-enthralled cult of celebrity, so that everything becomes a kind of entertainment feeding off itself -- when these things happen all around us and most of the time we don't even notice, the confusion is complete" (Wen Stephenson The Atlantic Monthly Company).
It has become second nature for American's to see sensationalism in the news when it comes to politics. There have been no events that personify this more than the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. This experience has brought the personalization of politics to the front burner. This event made the public aware of what was going on with the media, people began to realize that the information being presented to them was sensationalized and not always an accurate portrayal of what was going on.
Not everyone believes this trend is a bad one. Some say society should scrutinize those in positions of power in order to ensure that leaders are moral people. They fear that those who are hypocritical or interested in hiding their pasts will use their political power unethically. Today's heightened level of interest in personalities ensures better politicians, they say. According to Samual Kernell "Before scientific surveys were widely available, a politician's mail and newspapers of the constituency substituted for public opinion. A favorable press may have only fostered an illusion of support, but frequently it sufficed. Also, prominent journalists serve as important opinion leaders in establishing the president's reputation" (Kernell, 67). Media associations have struggled for years to define what is newsworthy and what is not. It can be especially difficult to determine which aspects of a celebrity or politician's life are relevant to the public, and which should be protected as private and personal. Because many people believe that political figures set an example for others in both their messages and their lifestyles, reporting on some segments of a politician's life outside the office has come to be accepted.
A central question in the issue of the personalization of politics is the role of political leaders. Are they private citizens sent to represent a certain view for their constituents, or should they be perceived as leaders attempting to persuade citizens to adopt their points of view? Some argue that public figures influence others by their personal example, whether they intend to or not. Political leaders must be held to a higher standard, they argue, because they have been elected to a position of power and influence. Furthermore, they say that the public must be able to put complete trust in its political leaders.
Others argue that while a politician's beliefs and political activities are important, he or she cannot be expected to be perfect. They argue that everyone has a few skeletons in the closet, and that we cannot judge someone by the few lapses in judgment we all experience. Furthermore, they warn that a continued emphasis on the intimate details of the lives of public figures will dissuade competent leaders from seeking public office. "We continue to want a president to help make things better, but to do so within the bounRAB of established institutions and traditions. We expect him to be at once a force for constructive change, and for continuity and stability…. Americans see honesty, integrity and trustworthiness as the most important attributes in their presidents. Every time a question about strong moral leadership is asked, the public says it wants that leadership from the president and says that such leadership is rooted in personal integrity" (Everett Carll Ladd). The American public expects a great deal from there presidents. They expect them to be not only great leaders, but good, morally upstanding people. They want them to represent everything that is good about America, and feel betrayed when a president can not live up to that standard.
However, regardless of what the public wants or neeRAB the media does what neeRAB to be done to sell their product, whether it is television ratings, magazines, or newspapers. This includes exposing scandalous information that may not necessarily need to be exposed. This has led to the personalization of politics. The American public does not necessarily want to hear negative information about public officials, but will listen to what is being said, which means they will buy the products, or watch the television causing the media to present even more information about public officials. In this day and age, it is extremely difficult to be a public official. The job is not longer representing the people; it is putting your whole life on display for others to judge. It is also no longer about ability, but about scandal and whose press secretary can put a better spin on the scandal. end
Works Cited
Carll Ladd, Everett, On to 2000: What Do Americans Want in Their Next President? Noveraber 12, 1998 http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/1112/icnational.asp
Grossman, Michael D., Martha Joynt Kumar, Francis E. Rourke. "Second Term Presidencies: The Aging of Administrations." The Presidency and The Political System. Ed. Micheal Nelson. Washington DC: CQ Press, 1998. 235.
Kernell, Samuel. Going Public New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 3rd edition. San Diego: CQ Press, 1997.
Stephenson, Wen. Out of Context.The Atlantic Monthly Company © 1997 http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/unbound/media/ws970611.htm
Privacy has become a rare commodity for public officials over the past half century. It has even gotten to the point that almost all of the information in newspapers, magazines, and television involve information about the private lives of public officials. There have been two main reasons for the personalization of politics, the first is the age-old influence of political differences, and the second factor is more novel -- the rise of the Internet. These two factors have added to the lack of privacy for public officials. Journalists now scrarable for any possible skeletons they can dig up on public officials, claiming that the public has a right to know everything about the people who represent them. The journalists claim that it is their responsibility to make sure the politicians are morally upstanding citizens. Unfortunately this has lead to many political and private lives being ruined as result of information that is presented by the press. Throughout the past 50 years the relationship between public officials and the press has gone from excellent to horrendous. All of these factors have led to the personalization of politics and made it impossible for public officials to have any kind of private life.
One of the more interesting aspects of the recent coverage of political scandals has been the press' extensive coverage of itself. Not only has the behavior of political leaders been under fire, but also the media's reporting of it. Media outlets are now more plentiful than ever, with online news sources joining those established in radio, print and television and all are competing for breaking news. The pressure to get the story, some argue, has led to the reporting of rumor and unverified information, as well as extensive coverage of personal information that violates the privacy of public figures. In the light of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal some argue that the press is more concerned with selling papers than educating the public. They argue that important stories are left unprinted to make room for sensational news such as the romantic life of politicians. Critics also note that the public's consumption of the news is declining, as many Americans become skeptical of its relevance and its origins. This view is supported by Grossman, Kumar and Rourke when they discuss the relationship between the president and the press: "Instead, journalists, now viewing themselves as under attack, take joy in uncovering the president's mistakes and highlighting what they regard as the failures and contradictions of his administration. News organizations can provide a harsh and unflattering view of any administration…" (Nelson, 235). Grossman, Kumar and Rourke support the view that the media can both create and destroy an administration depending on how they (the media) are treated by the administration.
Several societal factors have contributed to the increasingly personal nature of political news. The first is the age-old influence of political differences. Attempts to influence the public encourage biased or exaggerated claims about oneself or one's political opponent, and can lead to ad hominem attacks by those attempting to discredit the opposition. The second factor is more novel -- the rise of the Internet. While the Internet itself does not lead to any particular form of online content, the presence of online news services competing with television, radio and print journalists for stories has led to increased pressure on reporters to find exclusive information. In addition, the lack of any precedent for online journalistic ethics has led some outlets to publish rumors or other unverifiable information.
"It's hard to pinpoint just where in the past four or five decades the process began, but by now it's practically a truism to say that all media, including the online media, have come to reserable television -- or at least to pay tribute to its authority... Today, when newspapers spend much of their time reporting on "personalities" and "events" (images and soundbites) that are created for and exist solely within the media, when magazines that were once concerned primarily with the critique of politics and literature and the arts are filled with articles that mimic TV's self-enthralled cult of celebrity, so that everything becomes a kind of entertainment feeding off itself -- when these things happen all around us and most of the time we don't even notice, the confusion is complete" (Wen Stephenson The Atlantic Monthly Company).
It has become second nature for American's to see sensationalism in the news when it comes to politics. There have been no events that personify this more than the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. This experience has brought the personalization of politics to the front burner. This event made the public aware of what was going on with the media, people began to realize that the information being presented to them was sensationalized and not always an accurate portrayal of what was going on.
Not everyone believes this trend is a bad one. Some say society should scrutinize those in positions of power in order to ensure that leaders are moral people. They fear that those who are hypocritical or interested in hiding their pasts will use their political power unethically. Today's heightened level of interest in personalities ensures better politicians, they say. According to Samual Kernell "Before scientific surveys were widely available, a politician's mail and newspapers of the constituency substituted for public opinion. A favorable press may have only fostered an illusion of support, but frequently it sufficed. Also, prominent journalists serve as important opinion leaders in establishing the president's reputation" (Kernell, 67). Media associations have struggled for years to define what is newsworthy and what is not. It can be especially difficult to determine which aspects of a celebrity or politician's life are relevant to the public, and which should be protected as private and personal. Because many people believe that political figures set an example for others in both their messages and their lifestyles, reporting on some segments of a politician's life outside the office has come to be accepted.
A central question in the issue of the personalization of politics is the role of political leaders. Are they private citizens sent to represent a certain view for their constituents, or should they be perceived as leaders attempting to persuade citizens to adopt their points of view? Some argue that public figures influence others by their personal example, whether they intend to or not. Political leaders must be held to a higher standard, they argue, because they have been elected to a position of power and influence. Furthermore, they say that the public must be able to put complete trust in its political leaders.
Others argue that while a politician's beliefs and political activities are important, he or she cannot be expected to be perfect. They argue that everyone has a few skeletons in the closet, and that we cannot judge someone by the few lapses in judgment we all experience. Furthermore, they warn that a continued emphasis on the intimate details of the lives of public figures will dissuade competent leaders from seeking public office. "We continue to want a president to help make things better, but to do so within the bounRAB of established institutions and traditions. We expect him to be at once a force for constructive change, and for continuity and stability…. Americans see honesty, integrity and trustworthiness as the most important attributes in their presidents. Every time a question about strong moral leadership is asked, the public says it wants that leadership from the president and says that such leadership is rooted in personal integrity" (Everett Carll Ladd). The American public expects a great deal from there presidents. They expect them to be not only great leaders, but good, morally upstanding people. They want them to represent everything that is good about America, and feel betrayed when a president can not live up to that standard.
However, regardless of what the public wants or neeRAB the media does what neeRAB to be done to sell their product, whether it is television ratings, magazines, or newspapers. This includes exposing scandalous information that may not necessarily need to be exposed. This has led to the personalization of politics. The American public does not necessarily want to hear negative information about public officials, but will listen to what is being said, which means they will buy the products, or watch the television causing the media to present even more information about public officials. In this day and age, it is extremely difficult to be a public official. The job is not longer representing the people; it is putting your whole life on display for others to judge. It is also no longer about ability, but about scandal and whose press secretary can put a better spin on the scandal. end
Works Cited
Carll Ladd, Everett, On to 2000: What Do Americans Want in Their Next President? Noveraber 12, 1998 http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/1112/icnational.asp
Grossman, Michael D., Martha Joynt Kumar, Francis E. Rourke. "Second Term Presidencies: The Aging of Administrations." The Presidency and The Political System. Ed. Micheal Nelson. Washington DC: CQ Press, 1998. 235.
Kernell, Samuel. Going Public New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 3rd edition. San Diego: CQ Press, 1997.
Stephenson, Wen. Out of Context.The Atlantic Monthly Company © 1997 http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/unbound/media/ws970611.htm