Whether 40 years ago with the Pentagon Papers or in our current day and age with the War in Iraq, the phrase “the people’s right to know” inevitably pervades. And the scope of that phrase is certainly open to debate. Does the general public have the right to know anything and everything about an issue? Or should the public be shielded from some information for their own good? Some of the recent events in the world of sports beg those exact questions and are worth examining.
The summer of 2007 was dubbed by many in the media as the “summer of sin” in professional sports. National Basketball Association veteran referee Tim Donaghy pled guilty to betting on games in which he refereed, a cardinal sin in the world of sports [#1]. San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds broke the record for career home runs, but not without an enormous cloud of controversy over his head debating whether he used steroids to achieve the feat [#2]. And what is being called one of the worst scandals in sports history, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick admitted to his involvement in an illegal dogfighting ring [#3]. In each of these cases, to say the public speculation on the matter was rampant would be an understatement. Which brings up the question: where is the line where information crosses the realm of public’s right to know into the private life of the individual in scrutiny?
Take Donaghy’s betting scandal...
As the facts emerged in the case, not only did the media scrutinize his actions on the court that led to the fiasco, but also Donaghy’s actions behind closed doors, including his family life, past gambling addictions, and possible mob connections. Even the Government got involved. On July 27th, NBA Commissioner David Stern met with U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, the head of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. Rush was quoted as saying before the meeting that he would consider calling a public hearing on the issue "should the facts warrant public scrutiny." [#4] This hearing did not happen, which I believe was for the good of the public. Yes, I agree that one must be well informed (that is, have knowledge on both sides of an issue) in order to maintain a just opinion. Nevertheless, I believe “the people’s right to know” has a scope. If one wanted to decide whether Donaghy’s actions were foul (no pun intended), does he or she really need to know that he is involved in a divorce and custody battle over his four children? The answer is no. Absorb the facts of the issue, and leave private matters alone.
Or take Bonds’ steroid allegations…
In a 2005 press conference, Bonds stated that he was physically and emotionally tired from both on-the-field strains (he was going through a knee injury at the time) and the media’s off-putting depiction of him and his alleged steroid use. Despite his pleas, that criticism did not wane over the next two years. In fact, it consistently increased as Bonds approached the precipice of baseball immortality in 756 home runs. Anything and everything was subject to scrutiny: Bonds’ personal life, his early playing days with the Pittsburgh Pirates, his testimony to a grand jury on steroids in 2003 [#5], the list goes on and on.
Now while I personally am not a fan of Barry Bonds, I do adamantly believe that the media hoopla surrounding the home run record drastically diminished the significance of it. The bottom line is that Bonds has passed every steroid test he has taken, and he is yet to be indicted on any perjury charges in conjunction with his 2003 testimony. Yet still, journalists focus on the more grisly aspects of the situation. And we have established that even though journalists may have serious doubts about what they report on (actual malice), they are simply doing their job. The courts established the plaintiff’s burden of actual malice in the first place so the plaintiff more often than not would lose, in turn promoting wide open, robust speech. Even so, I again stress that there is a line that must not be crossed. Let the man play baseball and have a peaceful life outside of it until hard evidence arises that refutes his achievements.
Finally, let’s examine what I believe to be the grimmest of the three scandals, Michael Vick’s involvement in dogfighting…
Let me preface this explanation by saying that the facts in this case are not for the weak of heart. Vick admitted to organizing and funding the activities, which included training the animals, transporting them for fights, and receiving bets on the fights themselves. If a dog did not perform well in the brawls, Vick and his cohorts would execute it by methods such as hanging, drowning, electrocuting and shooting [#6]. For me personally after hearing these facts, the question isn’t “How much do I have the right to know?” but rather “Do I even want to know?” Michael Vick was the face of the Falcons’ organization, and in the fallout of his confession to these heinous actions, his and the Falcons’ reputation was irreversibly damaged. It brings to mind the case of Federal Communications Commission vs. Pacifica Foundation, which took the neoliberal stance of protecting the speaker from the obscenities in George Carlin’s monologue [#7]. Though Vick’s situation does not involve obscene speech, it does bear striking similarities to the case. Just like the Supreme Court was concerned with what speech is fit for children, the amount of information released in the Vick case must consider what affect it will have on children who held Vick up as their role model in the past.
A limit on the public’s right to know does not lend itself solely to the world of sports; these are merely recent examples. You can look at any time of national security (i.e. post- 9/11) and make the point that while some facts should be made known to the public domain, others should not. If the media knew every miniscule detail about the War in Iraq, there exists no doubt in my mind that the catastrophizing would be immensely greater than it is now, leading to civil unrest. A definite line of what information to be made known must be present for the common citizen’s own good.
#1: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2975532
#2: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august082007/bonds_folo_080807.php
#3: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665103,00.html
#4; http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2950266
#5: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/13/bonds.steroid/index.html
#6: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf
#7: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree that there must be a definite line drawn regarding what information is disclosed to the public. I however also feel that celebrities are more prone to having more information disclosed. Since they are in the public eye all the time and have so many people consider them personal heroes it is important for the public to be well versed on these issues.
However, I cannot imagine the media having access to every piece of information. If this ever occurred our nation would turn into mass ciaos. People would be outraged, feared and dismayed over what they would hear. It would also harm our nations sense of security. We as the American people do not find out about every threat that is made to our country. If we did we would be in constant fear of attack. This is why the government censors what we hear and what we know. This should in some way be the same way we go about information about celebrities. We should know the relevant information and not the stuff that is irrelevant.
I however do think that we should be aware of certain details of celebrity actions so that if necessary we can drop those idols from the pedestals they stand so high on.
I feel that the argument you present in your blog does not so much concern how much information the First Amendment should permit the public to know, but rather your concern with the disrespectful the media imposes on the personal life of celebrities.
You could present this same argument for many popular media figures: Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith, Lindsey Lohan, ect. Public exposure literally drove these individuals insane. They hate(d) the limelight, but that did not withdraw the public’s right to know about their personal lives.
If the Constitution protected the American people from gossip, our society would be a very different and probably happier place. However, with a few exceptions, the Constitution protects all speech, no matter how offending or personal it may be.
It is unfortunate that with the coverage of these controversial actions of these athletes came the exposure of painful, personal experiences. However, the amount of privacy that a celebrity should legally enjoy is a widely debated topic, and is viewed differently by different people.
One could argue that professional athletes, movie stars and on-stage performers know what kind of exposure they are getting themselves into by participating in such careers. An opposing view might claim that while these figures enjoy attention, they do not want their personal lives displayed on magazine covers on tabloid stands across the nation. However, both arguments are political, and do not concern the content of the First Amendment.
The popular debate on what the public should and shouldn’t know typically addresses politics and the amount of information that the government makes available; not the personal life of citizens. In the case of the Pentagon Papers, the government was withholding information from the public in fear of embarrassment and exposure of its own shameful actions. This is the kind of thing that the public should be wary of when discussing this particular issue. Likewise, it is much more disturbing that Americans aren’t fully informed on the happenings in Iraq, than the fact that we are somewhat disturbed when hearing about some of the dreadful things that happen on the battleground. As a democracy and a self-governing nation, citizens should be fully educated and aware of every action and aspect of our society; it is the only way that our country can properly function.
Furthermore, the broadcasting and coverage of Michael Vick’s monologue, however disturbing, is not unconstitutional or inappropriate. Stories very similar to his are broadcasted on the news every day without regulations or restrictions in the interests of children. Life is not always fair and it is not always happy, and as much as we sometimes wish it weren’t true, the public cannot be completely shielded from reality.
I agree with you that the every piece of information cannot be brought into public light. Not only is it impossible, but it is simply rediculous. I think it is right there that we place our trust in the media, whether we should or shouldn't.
The media has their hands on SO much more information than what actually gets published. Let's be honest though, the media are going to write what sells. If that wasn't the case, why was Anna Nichole Smith headline news for so long? Reguardless of their moral/legal repsonsibilities, the press is a buisiness. They are providing the public with not only important information, but information they think will sell. Did it work for these athletes? Sure did! Horrifying as it may be, the public loves this stuff! It might not be what they wanted when they signed on for celebrity status, but it was in the fine print that they should have read.
I think that if the government starts to draw a line between legitimate information and personal lives, it will never make it through. That is limiting content, which violates everything the freedom stands for! If the information is readily available, then it should be all means be able to be published.
In regards to Barry Bonds, the media focuses on the grisly aspects of his situation because he almost certainly used steroids. If the pictures on this page don't prove it, I don't know what will. (http://tylerc66.blogspot.com) It wasn't the media attention that dimished the home run record, it was the fact that the majoity of the population believes that Barry Bonds took steroids.
You also stated that the media should not report on the facts of the Michael Vick case because it might be upsetting to children who looked up to Michael Vick as a role model. Doesn't this case prove that he wasn't a good role model to begin with? Also, there are much worse things that go on in this world besides dogfighting. Should the media also not report the crimes of rapists and murderers? Surely that knowledge would also have a negative effect on the average child.
In your final comment you stated:
"If the media knew every miniscule detail about the War in Iraq, there exists no doubt in my mind that the catastrophizing would be immensely greater than it is now."
I believe that if the media did its job and found out every miniscule detail about the War in Iraq before we got there, there exist no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't currently be stuck in a catastrophic war. If anything, the media has failed in its duty to inform the American people of important details. They should certainly not be encouraged to limit the information they provide.
I disagree completely with your view that there should be a line drawn with regard to what information is disclosed to the public. Professional sports players are celebrities in a fashion, and they assume no more risk than politicians do when every minute detail of their lives is examined before elections. It would be impossible to create standards and boundaries for censoring the exposure of the details of their private lives and would also constitute prior restraint by the government on media. The First Amendment comes with an inherent risk that the public must be willing to take on.
Yes, it is loathsome that the media uses sensationalism to sell itself, but offensive or disturbing speech must be protected or there would be no need for a First Amendment. In regards to the Vick case, it is impossible to stop the media from broadcasting those details out of regard for children's interests because that would infringe on adults' rights as well. It is much better to inform the public, including children, about atrocities like dogfighting so that they can be prevented or prohibited. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away, and ignorance is not bliss.
The most alarming statement to me, however, is the remark that "If the media knew every miniscule detail about the War in Iraq, there exists no doubt in my mind that the catastrophizing would be immensely greater than it is now." The media functions as a check on government, and should be allowed to expose any information concerning its military operations and national security that would not directly compromise American goals (e.g. publishing a plan of attack before it occurs). If it did not, the public would only have a false sense of security while the government is free to abuse its power as much as it wants. The government does not have a right to give only misleading information that would convince the American public to go to war (read: propaganda) while suppressing all dissent. It is the media's duty to examine all war operations and especially the rationale for the war, and it should not be blamed for exacerbating a war that is mired due to the Bush administration's lack of foresight in planning.
Post a Comment