tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530140329306503392.post6587450016308764219..comments2024-03-15T08:33:32.569-04:00Comments on Crane and Matten blog: Sex, privacy and media ethicsCrane and Mattenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13809682169218066019noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530140329306503392.post-84743903288072641432011-06-01T23:02:41.859-04:002011-06-01T23:02:41.859-04:00Very interesting!
Though I disagree that the publ...Very interesting! <br />Though I disagree that the public lives of celebrities getting reported is not in the interest of the public. The degree of ‘celebretiness varies, depending on the celebrities manage, nurture and keep their status alive, but given that there is a dramatic shift in having been a celebrity say hundred years ago and today there are serious consequences. It is not that the world has suddenly become more moral or ethical but that the social outlets aided by technology increased multifold. The biggest thing today is that there is an economic stake to being a celebrity measurable through airtime; brand endorsements, and public trust invested in these celebrities. Therefore there also emerges consequential damage at two levels first to the brand (such as those affected by Tiger Woods scandal) and second the abuse of public trust (albeit assuming that public is innocent and gullible to believe in the celebrities in the first place).<br />I think the media also feels rightful in its conscious and repeated assertion to rebuke the high and mighty through its editorial and wordy columns, given that they are also one of the chief vehicles through which the celebrities in many cases become who they are. With so much moolah at stake, the thin line of reporting and sensationalism the role of media and ethics in the situations discusses is also under serious considerations. So what should media do? Not report? Not investigate?, not easy and simple to answer.<br />Thanks for the post!<br />regards <br />SanjuktaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com