Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Drawing a Line on Privacy Vexes Media

Paris tragedy leads 'the hunted' to call for limits on the press and the public's 'right to know.'

(Page 2 of 2)



Parker says blaming the paparazzi for Diana's death is easy and predictable. So is blaming the public's desire for celebrity tidbits. The media could produce a more serious and helpful critique, he believes, if they looked at their own eroding standards.

Skip to next paragraph

"The message of restraint lies with the editors and the publishers," Parker says. "They need to send the signal to reporters that more maturity is warranted."

Others agree that self-restraint is the best way to fend off calls for privacy laws and to improve the press's waning credibility with the public. More than 80 percent of people surveyed in December 1996 said the press was too intrusive and invasive, according to a poll by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

"Journalism and self-restraint rarely go together," says Bob Lichter, president of the center, a media think tank in Washington.

Mr. Lichter says if the paparrazi are the lowest of the low in the media hierarchy, the press of record is quickly descending to its level, rung by rung.

In 1991, a New York Times reporter got key information about the alleged victim in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial by peeking in her window.

But Lichter also insists that the press needs to ask difficult questions of public figures. If reporters don't, they may fail to provide crucial information to the public. For instance, rumors of President Kennedy's infidelity were not followed up during his lifetime. He reportedly had a relationship with the former girlfriend of a Mafioso.

"You need to ask whether the president of the United States is having an affair with a gang moll," says Lichter. "But you don't need to stake out public figures to see if you can catch them in a sexual peccadillo."

Most media experts agree it's better to err in the direction of visibility and exposure rather than secrecy.

"Otherwise, just as they've done throughout history, the people who are powerful will attempt to hide their agenda from the people to whom they're accountable," says James Lull, a professor of communications at San Jose State University in California.

But most also agree that more self-restraint on the part of the press is warranted.

Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite said the "obnoxious" behavior of the paparazzi "has to be stopped by these tabloid editors getting a sense of their public responsibility." If the tabloid press is censored, "you can then limit the photographers from The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times and so forth," he said, speaking on "Dateline NBC" Tuesday night.

Or else ...

If reporters, photographers, and editors aren't willing to exercise self-restraint, some experts say they'd be willing to consider a law that would create a physical zone of privacy around celebrities- make it illegal for the press to come within 7 or 10 feet of a person without permission.

The zone of privacy could be similar to the one upheld by the Supreme Court outside of abortion clinics. It gives protesters their right to have their say, but at the same time it protects the clients who use the service from a certain amount of harassment.

"That's another case where conflicting rights clash," says Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla. "It provides a very interesting analogy for the press to consider."