This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing the balancing act between respecting the privacy of individuals versus the other people's need to know in order to have transparency for the democratic process.
For public figures like politicians and celebrities, there seems to be great interest from the public to know how these public figures conduct their private lives. Whether it is sex scandals, divorces, or any other type of "juicy" gossip, becomes sensation news and profitable for the news business.
Some justify this curiosity (bordering on voyeurism) on the public's need to know in order to judge a politician's conduct. After all, if they transgress in private life, they are likely to do the same in their politics.
Thus, President Kennedy's extra-marital affairs, while well protected by the media of the day, would have destroyed his reputation by today's media practices.
Were we well served by a media then that decided that the president's extra-marital affairs were off limits for media coverage or would we be better off with more transparency to know more about President Kennedy as a person?
Would the standoff against the Soviet Union in the Cuba missile crisis have been the same with a president that did not have as much respect from his people?
It is often justified by the media that lost of privacy is the price of being a celebrity, that people know that full well before entering the arena.
What makes this so? Is this just a way of justifying mass hysteria? Does the fact that a lot of people want to know make it a legitimate reason to know?
On the other side of the argument, there is a legitimate need for transparency in a democratic society where citizens need information to form opinions of their public service to decide at the next election whether to continue to support or to replace their elected politicians.
Should it be up to the politicians themselves to decide what is private and what the public should know? It certainly seem like a conflict of interest.
Should the public be able to know everything and decide which part is relevant? Should the politicians not be entitled to any privacy at all?
Then there are the lessons learned from Wiki-leaks. Should government diplomatic confidential documents be made public? Should the government have no secrets at all? Or is it possible to perform any diplomacy and negotiations without any cover of confidentiality?
Would transparent government have any spies? Should they?
Let's hear your ideas on Wednesday!
No comments:
Post a Comment