I believe that media should cover the privite lives of politicians and celebrities, but it should be very selective in doing so. In case of politicians, it's required to know their personal lives. But, in the other case it is probably to satisfy the people's voyueristic tendencies.
In the case of politicians, we expect certain strength of character and moral behavior from our leaders, which are directly associated with their private behavior. The private affairs of public servants become our business when their character and personal life adversely affect their ability to serve us effectively. Or when they betray our trust. For example several years ago the chancellor of a university located in my city was expelled from office for misusing university funds to renovate his posh personal residence. The scandal became the front page news in the campus news paper, and prompted a useful system wide reform. Also, consider the Clinton sex scandal, which sparked a debate about the powers and duties of legal prosecutors. Media should expose politicians personal information if they involve in any illegal activity in the work area. But at the same time media should respect their privacy and should not interfere with unnecessary personal matters like what scent they use, what type of clothing they wear in the relaxed times etc. For example, the media unnecessarily interfered in the matters of Clinton's daughter private details during the case. Media should be unbiased, should able to judge when dealing with sensitive matters.
In the other case, celebrities are profiled because it is chosen by people. After all, we are a society of voyeurs wishing to trasform our mundane lives; and one way to do so is to live vicariously through the experiences of others whose lives appear more interesting than our own. We will be curious to know how a film actress dresses for parties, how they behave in a social events, what they eat and other details. So we read film...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document