Week : Student Response to Discussion One and Two

FridayFeb 2 at 2:35pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Nathaniel,

Consider, as you did, Ronald Rittenberg, a big-time actor who lives his life in the public eye. However, celebrity or not he still bleeds red, meaning we are all the same.

An anonymous source calls to inform me that he is in my local county hospital with a possible broken foot. I'm now faced with the option to send a reporter there for a story or to let him be. I for one can say that when I am not feeling well, the last thing I want is to be harassed at my home, let alone a hospital. Everyone deserves some form of privacy, even celebrities.

As a journalist, it is my job to be fair and invading someone's privacy for a story on the actors possible broken ankle is not that. “The right to privacy is morally justified as: the foundation and protection of individual freedom; a presupposition of respect for persons as morally valuable ends in themselves, and a requirement for personal happiness and avoidance of anxiety and discomfort” (Jacquette, 2007).

This does not mean I wouldn't interview him or send someone else to do so; it just means I do not need to ambush an individual who is in his right to have privacy. "The newspaper should uphold the right of free speech and freedom of the press and should respect the individual’s right to privacy" (Jacquette, 2007).

There are other means of getting this story, which may include contacting the local hospital to be sure he is even in the ER or checked into the local hospital. For all we know, someone could have just been playing a prank or falsely giving out information.

This kind of work reminds me of TMZ, which mainly focuses on celebrity news. They receive a lot of backlashes because they do not always, if at all, follow journalism code.

As an editor for XYZ Television, I would not want that type of backlash for my journalists or news outlet, so I would give him the privacy he deserves and then have someone confront him when he is up to it.

Another alternative would be a phone interview, which could form a story without invading his rights. This process could also help the news outlet because others will see the level of professionalism and respect we carry.

As for Tiger Woods, I am not going to lie. I like hearing stories of these celebrities.

Our society puts these famous people on a pedestal. So when stories like the Tiger Woods circa 2009 come around, I feel it's a nice reminder that these people aren't picture perfect and are human just like you and I.

With that being said, most people expect these people to be perfect, and when they are not, unfortunately people like Tiger Woods are judged harshly. Of course infidelity is not ideal, but in cases such as these news articles, tabloid articles, whatever you want to call them, push the public to judge celebrities more than they would judge a neighbor or friend.

So from a fan of scandal, it may be okay for the media to post these stories. But from a personal stand point? The line may be grayed ever so slightly. If the accusations for this sex scandal were true, we have absolutely every right to report the news. Report the truth, and nothing but the truth (So help me, God. Joke.).