The distinction between the public and the private side of an officeholder were once a clear matter. In the 1940s to beginning '60s, the press adhered to the "Rooseveltian rule" for press coverage: The private life of a public figure should stay private and undisclosed unless it seriously impinged on his or her public performance." (Sabato 30). This rule is per se soundly ethical, yet its application was lopsided in favor of the office-holder, the press keeping silent on personal flaws that infringed public performance. No reporter covered the fact that Roosevelt was a cripple, had a love affair and was severely ill in his last term; the media also remained silent on J.F. Kennedy's compulsive sexual behavior and extensive medication. This silence was part of the media's position to be friendly towards political office-holders, valuing the importance of political authority and stability. Reporting was "to serve and reinforce the political establishment" (Sabato 25). Extensive investigations could have endangered the American people's belief in their government, a seemingly inappropriate effect of journalism in a time of exterior threat, first the Second World War later the Cold War. This era from around 1941 to 1963 has thus been called the "lapdog journalism" phase. After Kennedy's assassination, most journalistic circles agreed that it was immoral to cover up for officeholders' lies and those private problems that affected their ability to hold office. The media lapsed into a short time of "watchdog" journalism (about 1966 to 1974), which meant a thorougher scrutinizing of public people and a more sceptical vantage point towards their (public and private) behavior and political statements. This time is also known as the golden era of "investigative journalism" as best highlighted in Bob Woodward's and Carl Bernstein's uncovering of the Watergate Scandal. Journalism in this period contributed to the democratic checks and balances system in uncovering politically important facts, while keeping news about politicians' private lives minimal.
Table of Contents
- Historical Overview
- Why 'Anything Goes' Is not the Right Standard
- What the Standard Should Be
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to analyze the ethical implications of sensationalist media coverage of the private lives of public figures. It critiques the "anything goes" approach prevalent in modern journalism and proposes alternative standards for responsible reporting.
- The evolution of journalistic ethics regarding the privacy of public figures.
- The ethical arguments against the "anything goes" approach to reporting on private lives.
- The role of public opinion and voter behavior in shaping media coverage.
- The tension between journalistic inquiry and the protection of personal privacy.
- The need for clear ethical guidelines for journalists to balance public interest with individual rights.
Chapter Summaries
Historical Overview: This section traces the evolution of media coverage of public figures' private lives, identifying three distinct phases: "lapdog journalism" (1940s-1960s), characterized by deference to authority and the suppression of potentially damaging information; "watchdog journalism" (1966-1974), marked by increased scrutiny and investigative reporting, exemplified by Watergate; and "junkyard dog journalism" (1974-present), where private lives become fair game regardless of relevance to public performance. The shift from the "Rooseveltian rule" (keeping private lives private unless affecting public performance) to the "anything goes" mentality is highlighted, setting the stage for the paper's central argument.
Why 'Anything Goes' Is not the Right Standard: This chapter presents a multifaceted critique of the "anything goes" approach. It refutes the assumption that character equates to professional aptitude, citing empirical evidence showing that public opinion does not consistently prioritize personal morality over professional qualifications when evaluating political candidates. It further argues that this approach infringes on personal privacy, misrepresents the role of journalism in a democracy, and inappropriately prioritizes morality over legal considerations, thereby threatening the secular nature of the state. The author uses statements from prominent journalists like Bob Woodward and Brooks Jackson to illustrate the flawed logic underpinning the "anything goes" philosophy, contrasting these perspectives with empirical data demonstrating public disapproval of overly sensationalized coverage of personal matters.
Keywords
Sensationalist media, privacy, public figures, journalistic ethics, lapdog journalism, watchdog journalism, junkyard dog journalism, public opinion, political campaigns, democratic system, ethical guidelines, John Rawls, "veil of ignorance".
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Analysis of Sensationalist Media Coverage of Public Figures
What is the main topic of this paper?
This paper analyzes the ethical implications of sensationalist media coverage focusing on the private lives of public figures. It critiques the prevalent "anything goes" approach in modern journalism and proposes alternative standards for responsible reporting.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
Key themes include the evolution of journalistic ethics regarding the privacy of public figures; ethical arguments against the "anything goes" approach; the influence of public opinion and voter behavior on media coverage; the tension between journalistic inquiry and privacy protection; and the need for clear ethical guidelines balancing public interest with individual rights.
What historical phases of journalistic ethics are discussed?
The paper identifies three phases: "lapdog journalism" (1940s-1960s), characterized by deference to authority; "watchdog journalism" (1966-1974), marked by increased scrutiny; and "junkyard dog journalism" (1974-present), where private lives become fair game. The shift from prioritizing privacy unless affecting public performance to the "anything goes" mentality is a central focus.
Why does the paper argue against the "anything goes" standard?
The paper critiques the "anything goes" approach on several grounds: It challenges the assumption that character equates to professional competence, citing evidence that public opinion doesn't consistently prioritize personal morality over professional qualifications. It argues this approach infringes on privacy, misrepresents journalism's democratic role, inappropriately prioritizes morality over legal considerations, and threatens the secular nature of the state.
What evidence is used to support the critique of "anything goes"?
The paper uses statements from prominent journalists like Bob Woodward and Brooks Jackson to illustrate the flawed logic of the "anything goes" philosophy. It contrasts these perspectives with empirical data demonstrating public disapproval of overly sensationalized coverage of personal matters.
What are the proposed alternative standards for responsible reporting?
The paper doesn't explicitly lay out specific alternative standards but implicitly advocates for a more nuanced approach that balances public interest with the protection of individual privacy and adheres to legal and ethical guidelines. It suggests a return to a more responsible form of journalism that prioritizes factual reporting over sensationalism.
What keywords are associated with this paper?
Keywords include: Sensationalist media, privacy, public figures, journalistic ethics, lapdog journalism, watchdog journalism, junkyard dog journalism, public opinion, political campaigns, democratic system, ethical guidelines, John Rawls, "veil of ignorance".
What is the overall objective of the paper?
The paper aims to promote a critical discussion about the ethical responsibilities of journalists when covering the private lives of public figures, advocating for a shift away from sensationalism and toward a more responsible and ethically sound approach to reporting.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2006, Sensationalist Media and Privacy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/66803
