They Blog For You

THIS post was sparked by an exchange today with James Burdett on Twitter, after he drew his followers’ attention to this story:

An England footballer has won a continuation of a High Court gagging order preventing the “misuse” of private information about him.

For most people with an internet connection, the injunction is pointless – I did a two-minute search last weekend and identified the person in question. It didn’t make the story any more interesting.

I actually believe that public figures – including celebrities, sportsmen and women and, yes, even politicians – are entitled to keep their private lives private. “The public interest” is a very different thing from “what interests the public”.

But, I hear you cry, these celebrities use the media for their own self-promotion. They’ve no right to complain when the same media turn against them.

Well, up to a point. A celebrity’s relationship with the media is two-sided; the celebrity gets publicity, and the media sell advertising based on their content. So both sides “win”. So the celebrity is under no obligation to dance to the media’s tune at every turn of his or her private life once that relationship becomes one-sided.

Then there’s the inevitable and ridiculous argument: If he’s going to be unfaithful to his wife, how can his constituents trust him? *Sigh…*

Breaking news: MPs aren’t married to their constituents. Researchers are now coming round to the view that an individual’s relationship to his/her spouse could be substantially different from that with total strangers.

And the “I need to know about my MP’s personal character” argument doesn’t even apply to celebrities. Why do you need to know if X or Y is gay or straight? Do you think you’ve got a chance of sleeping with them?

Yes, that means that I believe Tiger Woods had every right to keep his numerous infidelities a secret, if he chose to. So did John Major, David Mellor, Robin Cook, Bil Clinton, etc (very long list).

Now, if someone in public life has actually broken the law, that’s a different matter. But short of that, someone’s private life is nobody else’s business.

NOTE: I’ve already been alerted by Twitter (hat-tip Old Holborn) that this debate could quite easily get sidetracked into ZanuLiebore’s Orwellian police state and the legal obligation we placed on park keepers to sit outside your house every night with a pair of binoculars and a box of doughnuts. But that’s not what this post is about – it’s about whether the media should be free to publish the embarrassing details of law-abiding individuals’ private lives. So please, people, keep to the topic. Off-topic comments will not be published.