The First Amendment, of course, protects the freedom of the press; sometimes I wonder, however, if members of the press abuse this right. For that matter, can it be abused? Is freedom simply freedom, without having to be responsible for one’s actions? I just came across this article, which got me thinking about this subject again. This is about a congressman in North Carolina who was questioned on the street by some unidentified students. They seemed to come from nowhere, from his perspective. The congressman asked them repeatedly who they were, but they never identified themselves; they only said they were students working on a project. The news story is of the congressman apologizing for his behavior. He physically restrained one of the students after the student started asking him questions (although, he was clearly not hurting the student). They were not exactly “the press” (and maybe not exactly “paparazzi”), but it is pretty much the same idea.
This could have been much worse (watch the videos). The older students here will remember incidents like Sean Penn attacking a member of the paparazzi years ago (late 1980s?), and many other such incidents involving celebrities have occurred over the years. So, how far does “freedom of the press” stretch? When does it become harassment? No matter your age, I am certain you are familiar with the events which led to the death of Princess Diana. “Freedom of the press” is one thing, but should they really have the freedom to accost celebrities and politicians on the street? The reactions of certain celebrities and the above congressman may be questioned, but are they not understandable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if incidents such as this stem from the growing amount of access we have to news and celebrities with all the 24 hour news stations and constant web access. I think people feel entitle to be able to just approach and sometimes harass others. While there is nothing wrong with interviewing a congressmen, he also deserves to be treated with some respect or general etiquette. Nobody wants to do a hostile interview or get plastered on TMZ for off hand comments.
ReplyDeleteBy my interpretation, "freedom of the press" is intended to protect the press from government influence or pressures to print/not print certain items--it does not mean that anyone who claims to be from the press is free to relentlessly badger or harass public figures. It would seem to me that these incidents of aggressive celebrity stalking by the paparazzi should by no means be considered constitutionally protected.
ReplyDeleteNow in the case of the congressman, that's a bit more of a fine line because you are in fact dealing with someone from a branch of government. I did not watch the video that accompanied this article, though it sounds like the congressman's reaction was disproportionate. That doesn't mean no fault can be found in the actions of these college students that prompted such a reaction.
I feel some sympathy for public figures--celebrities, politicians, etc.--who have to be "on" all the time. I have to wonder what I would do if a couple of people with a video camera swarmed me coming out of work one day and refused to identify themselves. Probably some profanities would fly--but it would just be those few people who think I'm a jerk, not everyone who reads about it on the internet the next day.
"The public has a right to know!" I love how members of the press (or wannabe members) always use this kind of line as an excuse to browbeat, stalk, and harass people. The congressman was definitely out of line here; I don't think anyone can argue that! However, I do think that the college kids need to take responsibility for their part in this. The congressman WAS within his rights to find out who was so belligerently questioning him, and the students should have complied with the request or discontinued the "interview".
ReplyDeleteThe congressman's actions were definitely wrong, but the thing with these types of "interviews" is that they're not intended to get the answers to any questions. They're meant to make the person being harassed look as awful as possible. I think this type of "journalism" was popularized by cable news commentators that have been known to send their producers to harass people(sometimes even people on their vacations) like this.
ReplyDeleteIncidents like this always make me think of those scenes in movies with the reporters yelling after the retreating hero or heroine that "the public has the right to know!" Every time I see that I can't help to think to myself, "do we really?" I believe that we should be able to access information of all kinds, but do we really have the right to demand answers of people everywhere and at all times?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's a crime to assault someone. What he did almost certainly qualifies just about anywhere. I'm sure there probably are laws regarding harassment, and I don't think "freedom of the press" absolves a papparazzo of guilt in those cases. As mentioned above, "freedom of the press" really refers to the government demanding information or silence from reporters.
ReplyDelete