Political Double Lives - Essay Example

History of the Dilemma In the age of a global media, lives of politicians and famous people in general are becoming far less private than during previous eras. The decreasing costs of advanced technologies ensures that each man, woman, and child in countries like the United States and Britain has easy access to a camera and phone. When fierce scandals in these public figures’ private lives, it is a matter of media scrutiny and global attention. One such example took place last year when news broke about Democratic Senator John Edwards’ affair with a campaign worker.

Although the media was slow to react, the story became front-page news, occupying television and newspapers’ attentions for weeks until it slowly faded away (Harris). The case of Edwards’ mishap provides a paradigm case of the private life of a public figure being made public. In many ways, this case study is symptomatic of an entire piece of the population that hold public office. The question surrounds the issue of whether they should be allowed to have a private life or whether their private matters ought to be kept out of the limelight.

Opposing ViewpointsCertainly, there is a case to be made for keeping politicians’ lives under constant scrutiny. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came under fire for her husband’s presidential library acceptance of large donations from the royal family of Saudi Arabia (Solomon and Birnbaum). Concerned about a conflict of interest, media scrutiny resolved the issue and nothing wrong could be found. This is a paradigm case of private affairs being pertinent in a public matter for a politician.

Nevertheless, we should not make politicians sacrifice themselves as human beings for the greater good of the public’s democracy. However, this debate does not require us to choose between extremes. As Tony Blair recently said, “Ministers should not be judged on their private lives unless their behavior affected the performance of their public duties” (Webster). That is, only in cases where there is a potential conflict of interests, such as in Clinton’s case, should politicians revoke the right to privacy.

Social ResponsibilityThis dispute originates, for the most part, because of the democratic structure of most developed countries’ governments (BBC). Constituents expect of those they rightly elect to represent them to represent them in all ways, both in the policies they advocate for on the job and how they live their lives off the job. Given the enormous power the people vest in their elected officials, it seems only right, in the context of social responsibility, that politicians respect the fact that the public wants and needs to know this information about their private lives.

The party most directly responsible for the dilemma, as previously mentioned, is probably the mass media, which is so ubiquitous and nonstop in today’s world (Holtz-Bacha). Newspapers publish daily, bloggers post nightly, and cable television broadcasts a wide array of politically-oriented programming night and day. As a result, the smallest details of a politician’s life can be revealed to the media and disseminated through that means of communication. Because of the First Amendment, it is the public’s expectation of the media to provide credible and reliable information to the public with respect to its government (Hunsaker).

ResolutionIn the future, as media sources become more and more ubiquitous, the dilemma will tend towards one extreme: sacrificing the private life of our politicians, mainly to serve the interests of the public in (a) knowing the details of their representatives’ off-duty activities, and (b) involving members of the public in these affairs for their own satisfaction (that is, by entertaining them). According to the standards of my own position, which lies in the middle of the debate, this is a “worsening” of the situation.

The existence of a private life for politicians is contingent upon the intensity of the media’s scrutiny. This intensity will depend on what the audience of this information demands in the future: whether the kind of news coverage we get today, or public interest in some other issue. Also at state will be what politicians allow of their private life to be shown to the public. Nevertheless, governments cannot ban such coverage, as it would violate the First Amendment.Works CitedBBC. The private life of politicians: do we expect too much?

16 November 2001. 29 March 2009 .Harris, Paul. Edwards scandal rocks US media. 10 August 2008. 28 March 2009 .Holtz-Bacha, Christina. The Private Life of Politicians: New image making strategies and how they have changed relations between politicians and the press in Germany. 13 August 2004. 30 March 2009 .Hunsaker, David M. "Freedom and Responsibility in First Amendment Theory: Defamation Law and Media Credibility." Quarterly Journal of Speech 65:1 (1979): 25-35.Solomon, John and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum.

Clinton Library Got Funds From Abroad. 15 December 2007. 28 March 2009 .Webster, Philip. Politicians have right to a private life, says Blair. 30 November 2004. 28 March 2008 .