What Do Public Figures Owe Us?

[peachexploration]

I was looking a www.lamusica.com and noticed that Marc Anthony felt compelled to post a statement to the allegations surrounding his personal life. I was a little taken aback by the fact that he had to do that. I mean, who am I to judge, speculate or scoff at anyone? But quite a few people believe it's their "right to know" and there's nothing wrong with that but personally, I don't think just because I buy his salsa/pop CD's that I should know the details of marriage or harass his children, blah, blah blah. Oh wait, maybe if he's an axe murder, then I'd wanna know. LOL :lol: But I guess I just feel bad for him. Whew! Glad it's not me..............

Anyways, how do you guys feel about public figures? Just curious.

[pygmalion]

In a word, entertainment. That's what I'm paying for. I totally ignore all the other stuff. And, btw, WHAT allegations? LOL. That should show you how much I blank out the gossip. Isn't relevant to me, at all.


(And, btw, I don't really want to know what allegations. I'm sorry Mr. Anthony is going through whatever he's going through. :( )

[Sagitta]

Poor guy!! There are some situations where some details of a person's personal life can reflect on their character and may help the public, but even then this is not a everything goes situation. There should be limits.

Unfortunately a lot of people are into gossip and living vicariously through others lives and so this sort of thing will always be going on. I personally don't have time to partticipate in this. (Not that I woud ever want to do so!! :shock: )

[Swing Kitten]

does it make a difference if someone is an elected official?

[Pacion]

Bottomline? Sex and sleazy sells :oops: if a public figure puts themself "in a position" to have pot shots taken at them, that is the name of the game, as far as the media is concerned.

Personally, I think there is a fine line between privacy and "public interest", but how do you make distinctions for one and not for others? From what I have heard/read, the respect that the media used to show has pretty much gone. Is it Theodore Roosevelt who was in a wheelchair during his presidency and it was never in the press? From what I heard, Eleanor Roosevelt "ordered" that this was kept from the public. I think there were concerns that the public would question his ability to be President, if they knew. Therefore, any photos were taken in such a way that it appeared as if he was "just sitting".

Some of that is also evidenced here in the UK. It is widely rumoured that very senior members of the Royal Family have had affairs/children with other partners, but the media does not touch that. Yet, they seem to report every old and new "revelation" about Princess Diana with, what appears to me, to be absolute glee. Yet, she has been dead seven years? :( Oh of course, there is still the fascination with Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys.

Then there is that huge focus on "beauty/perfection" which I don't remember being aware of when I was in my teens. A celebrity looks "rough" one moment, and then you suddenly see photos of them looing "stunning". How did they do that? Hardwork (2 litres of water, diet and exercise) or, was it the surgeon's knife and/or liposuction tubes or even digital enhancing of the photos? This is important "news" from the perspective of lots of girls/women looking up to them and thinking "so, that is what beauty is" and aspire to that. According to the media (if you can believe them), anorexia is at an all time high.

Certain things should be private/sacred particularly when it comes to the children though. I remember reading something about a film star driving with her baby, pulling a gun on a journalist who rammed her car to force her to stop, so that he could try and take a photo of her baby. (Don't quote me, but I think it was Catherine Zeta Jones.) Alec Baldwin has also been in similiar bustups I believe.

But the media will try everything they can to get "headlines" and the journalists/photographers know this and therefore will do what they can to supply the stories/photos. An editor once said, that if he/she did not publish it, a competitor will and they would then have to answer to their publisher/the owners because it would mean lost sales/market share. But, decency and how much the readers will take can be hard "task masters". Coming back to Princess Diana, a photographer was trying to sell photos of her dying in the back of the car. That he even considered selling them/making them public in the first place!!!

In summary, :wink: it is not just what the public figures owe us, but what we also owe them :oops:

[pygmalion]

Good question, SK. I have thought about that one a lot, and I'm still not sure of my position. I'm hedging, I know, but I think some things matter a lot, some matter less. For example, how a politician handles his/her own personal finances matters to me, because it implies how he/she will handle the state's finances. Whether a politician gets along with their kids? I don't know. I think family relationships are too complex to have a direct, predictable bearing on my assessment of their character. So I guess I just don't know.

[Swing Kitten]

Is it Theodore Roosevelt who was in a wheelchair during his presidency and it was never in the press?

Franklin Roosevelt ;) very close though-- Theodre Roosevelt is after whom the Teddy Bear was named.

You make some very good points though.

[pygmalion]

Wow, Pacion. I have to ponder what you said before I reply.

btw, there was a bit of controversy over the Roosevelt wheel chair quite recently. A memorial statue of him was made which did not feature the wheelchair, and the political lobbies that represent people with disabilities were in an uproar. They felt it was important to have an accurate representation of Roosevelt as he really was -- in a wheelchair. I'm not sure how it turned out, in the end. :oops: US news reporting is notorious for that -- reporting the beginning of the story, but not following up. I believe the memorial ended up showing the chair prominently, but I'll have to google and check.

[pygmalion]

Here's a picture of the FDR memorial.

http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/DCTour/natmall/FDRMemorial.htm

[Genesius Redux]

What do artists owe us? Their art.

What do elected officials owe us? Their industry and judgement.

Unfortunately, there's nothing the American public loves more than a scandal--because people who haven't done anything with their lives feel so much better when they see the rich and famous in ruins. True Nietzchean "resentiment."

Still, you don't make yourself a public figure in this country without being aware of the price. So I'm not all that sympathetic when public figures sit down on the ground to tell sad stories of the death of kings either.

Me--if the music's good, I'll dance to it. Unless s/he's one of my friends, the artist's personal troubles aren't my business.

[Pacion]

Is it Theodore Roosevelt who was in a wheelchair during his presidency and it was never in the press?

Franklin Roosevelt ;) very close though-- Theodre Roosevelt is after whom the Teddy Bear was named.

:oops: That's what you get when you try to be a renegade from the IRU Club :oops: :lol:

During all that time few people knew of his infirmity, reporters and photographers never revealing to the public, although most were themselves aware, that he was virtually bound to a wheelchair.

That is the sort of respect I was referring to - at least I see it as respect. Therefore, people saw him first and foremost as a statesman rather than someone who was in a wheelchair. :( In a round about way, it is like us women who want to be respected for our minds and not our bodies :wink:

I think I understand where the disabilities organizations/lobbies are coming from but this sort of this is very difficult. Franklin :!: D Roosevelt was a president who happened to need a wheelchair. Or, was he a man who was in a wheelchair who happened to become president?

I know a few people who are disabled and they all say, they want recognition for their achievements which is different to recognition for their achievements inspite of their disability. To explain a bit further, one lady I know who is blind was being awarded by her company for being the Top Sales Person of the Year. At the Award Ceremony, the MC mentioned her blindness and her achievement in the same breath. She was so upset, she refused to go up to the stage and accept her award. She felt that indirectly she was being trivalised next to her sighted colleagues ie. people bought from her because of her blindness/disability and not because of her ability to sell ice to eskimos/sand to the arabs.

Yet, on the other hand, I can see why various bodies would want to hold FDR up as a role model. It's a bit like Stevie Wonder also. People buy his music because they like it, not because they want to support a blind man. In a way, FDR and Stevie Wonder are role models/examples to the bodies/institutions who put up blocks for disabled people. I read that Stevie Wonder's mother was told, when he was young, that she should put him into a school for blind kids where he could learn to weave baskets as that was all he would be able to do. His mother was aware of his love of music and took him somewhere where his love for music would be nutured. The rest, as they say, is history.

[pygmalion]

Interestingly, it has been speculated that, nowadays, given the fact that everything is televised, Roosevelt would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get elected. Yet he's the only US president in history to have gotten elected to four consecutive terms in office. (He died during his fourth term.) So he was arguably one of the best US presidents in history, or at least the electorate at the time thought so. Yet, in times of full disclosure such as now, he probably would not have had the chance.

[Pacion]

Interestingly, it has been speculated that, nowadays, given the fact that everything is televised, Roosevelt would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get elected. ... Yet, in times of full disclosure such as now, he probably would not have had the chance.

Exactly :!: I have heard/read that also. I am pleased to say, we have/had two disabled politicians. One guy is blind, the other is deaf. I think the one who is deaf (may have retired now as he would be in his 60s/70s) became deaf AFTER he was already a respected politician so he already had proven that he was of sound mind already :lol:

[Genesius Redux]

During all that time few people knew of his infirmity, reporters and photographers never revealing to the public, although most were themselves aware, that he was virtually bound to a wheelchair.

That is the sort of respect I was referring to - at least I see it as respect. Therefore, people saw him first and foremost as a statesman rather than someone who was in a wheelchair. :( In a round about way, it is like us women who want to be respected for our minds and not our bodies :wink:


Actually, it can be read in another way. During the Depression and then especially during World War II, American propagandists wanted to project an image of strength and assertiveness, and felt that the wheelchair would send an image of a weak or infirm president. The reason Roosevelt was never photographed except from the chest up could be seen as profoundly disrespectful and bigoted. How could a crippled man lead America in a world war?

We're never going to get to a point where image doesn't mean anything, because images will always mean something. It's just a question of what the images mean. The wheelchair could be a symbol of weakness (as it was during the 1940s) and thus suppressed because of its associations, or it could be seen as a symbol of triumph over adversity and inclusiveness (as it is in the Memorial). But it can never be invisible.

One curious note--do you see how the chair in the memorial is covered over by the cloak, so that you're not sure what the nature of the chair is? That in itself is meaningful. Then there is FDR's dog--a small terrier, the soul of a fighter in a tiny body. Everything about the memorial bespeaks a concern with body.

The Stevie Wonder thing too--no, people don't listen to him *because* he's blind, but his blindness has become as much a part of his public image as Elton John's funky glasses. And there are many people who can't even listen to Michael Jackson anymore.

So it seems to me that it's not so much the details of someone's personal life that are at issue as how those details are handled. A public figure will still be a public figure.
:?:

[Pacion]

Actually, it can be read in another way. During the Depression and then especially during World War II, American propagandists wanted to project an image of strength and assertiveness, and felt that the wheelchair would send an image of a weak or infirm president.

A quick answer as I have to go and get ready to go to salsa :wink: It could also be read that way ie. project an image of strength. However, at least people were able to focus on his mind/ability as a statesman rather than switch off/invoke other emotions because of the sight of the wheelchair. Was he a good president? I don't know. My knowledge of American history/politics is very hazy. But, as Pygmalion said, he was the only President to have been elected four times, consecutively. So, either, he was good or, there was no one else?

Incidentally, isn't there something about a president can only have two terms in office as a result of FDR? I think I read something like that.

[Swing Kitten]

During all that time few people knew of his infirmity, reporters and photographers never revealing to the public, although most were themselves aware, that he was virtually bound to a wheelchair.

That is the sort of respect I was referring to - at least I see it as respect. Therefore, people saw him first and foremost as a statesman rather than someone who was in a wheelchair. :( In a round about way, it is like us women who want to be respected for our minds and not our bodies :wink:



actually, I didn't say that ;) that quote is from the link Jenn posted

[Genesius Redux]

Actually, it can be read in another way. During the Depression and then especially during World War II, American propagandists wanted to project an image of strength and assertiveness, and felt that the wheelchair would send an image of a weak or infirm president.

A quick answer as I have to go and get ready to go to salsa :wink: It could also be read that way ie. project an image of strength. However, at least people were able to focus on his mind/ability as a statesman rather than switch off/invoke other emotions because of the sight of the wheelchair. Was he a good president? I don't know. My knowledge of American history/politics is very hazy. But, as Pygmalion said, he was the only President to have been elected four times, consecutively. So, either, he was good or, there was no one else?

Incidentally, isn't there something about a president can only have two terms in office as a result of FDR? I think I read something like that.

You make an excellent point, and I think a convincing defense of the choice to not show the wheelchair. It's become almost cliche in American liberal and academic circles to see the decision as a suppression of an uncomfortable fact, and you do a nice job of defending the opposite view.

And yes, indeed, there is now a term limit--introduced by amendment after FDR's presidency. I think because conservatives had no wish to see more FDR populism--otherwise I'm convinced Clinton would have been elected to a third term.

FDR is the great hero-villain of the 20th century American political landscape, and rival interpretations of his presidency underwrite many of the current divisions between Republicans and Democrats. Conservative Republicans revile his memory as the architect of supposedly big government and the welfare state ("Are there no prisons?"), while liberal Democrats look at him as the champion of the underdog and a forerunner to Civil Rights. His economic policies and programs certainly helped put people back to work during the Depression (although you can argue that it was really the war that jump-started the economy), but he first got us seriously involved in Indonesia--leading directly to the Pearl Harbor conflict and to the Korean and Vietnam wars. People still argue over whether the New Deal programs were meant to be a permanent feature of government or just an interim aid to help put people back to work.

Hope you enjoyed your American history lesson. We'll have a quiz on Wednesday--or you can skip it and explain to me why modern British monarchs haven't dissolved Parliaments and called for new elections, just for the sheer fun of it.

I'm sure you're having much more fun at salsa, though! :wink:

[pygmalion]

Yup. That's why I said arguably. There are darn good arguments on either side of the FDR issue. Another example? The horrendous treatment of European Jewish refugees on his watch. A complex man. But then, politics is rarely a simple, unidimensional thing.

[Genesius Redux]

During all that time few people knew of his infirmity, reporters and photographers never revealing to the public, although most were themselves aware, that he was virtually bound to a wheelchair.

That is the sort of respect I was referring to - at least I see it as respect. Therefore, people saw him first and foremost as a statesman rather than someone who was in a wheelchair. :( In a round about way, it is like us women who want to be respected for our minds and not our bodies :wink:



actually, I didn't say that ;) that quote is from the link Jenn posted

Okay!!! Too many quotes within quotes within quotes--an attributionist's nightmare! I withdraw, I withdraw! :wink:

[Swing Kitten]

lol... not a problem-- just thought I should point it out :D

[Pacion]

:lol: :lol:

[salsachinita]

:lol: I am late on this post as usual......

Back to the original Marc Anthony issue, I had no idea about any of it until I received an e-mail form him (ok, his PR office I gathered) stating the whole 9 yards........so I guess in a way, it's a bit of a PR/advertising activity..... :? ?

[Pacion]

In recent days I have been thinking about this thread.

I am pleased to say, we have/had two disabled politicians. One guy is blind, the other is deaf.

UPDATE: The blind politician was the Home Secretary. His office/department looks after Immigation issues and a few other things. He recently resigned as a result of a "visa scandal". Apparently, he had been having an affair with a married woman for about three years. She has a son and it is believed that the son was fathered by the politician. Her husband is aware of the situation and accepts the boy as his own. She is also pregnant with her second child and it is believed that the politician is also the father.

To keep it brief (!) :lol: apparently the lady was hiring a non EC national as her nanny for the boy. The politician "reviewed/looked over the application" (or had someone in his political office do so) to make sure that the application was correctly filled in. Further details also came out whereby he influenced a visa application with the French embassy so that the visa was obtain in days rather than weeks.

He resigned yesterday? The media had a field day over the affair details (and of course, the paternity of the children) and what role he played in the visa applications. The sad thing is, where as once upon a time he was respected (in my opinion) and thought of as being good, now he is seen as unstable because "his personal life influenced his decisions".

[pygmalion]

I hate those nasty political scandals. Like the guy here who came out as gay earlier this year, thereby destroying his political career. :(

[Sagitta]

I hate those nasty political scandals. Like the guy here who came out as gay earlier this year, thereby destroying his political career. :( The NJ governor. This actually shows that being honest with oneself is the only way to go....

[pygmalion]

Yeah. Sad. :(

Edit: I'd add being honest to your family, too, Sagitta. Very sad.

I have a friend who went that route about twenty years ago -- he came out, even though he was married at the time, and had a young child. And he paid a terrible price for it. But he was true to himself in ways that I truly admire.