Right to Privacy--really?I hate to break it to you all but when you take a public job--especially a public job where people are watching you, listening to you; if, for example, you're a radio personality and prominent member of a morning news team, you then lose, sort of, your right to privacy. It's not the gospel but in practical terms, it's the truth.
I'm not going to mention the name of the individual a lot of you took me to task for mentioning out of "privacy"-concerns. Some of you--the same people who were wondering what the status was of this particular person because she's been off the air then came back only to disappear again.
High-profile media people, whether we like it or not, become a part of our lives--that is, assuming we watch and listen to them. They tend to be more on TV and less on radio but because we embed them into our daily ritual, like, for example, waking up in the morning to watch Matt Lauer or listen to Stan Bunger broadcast the news...they are, in essence, part of our life. We notice their looks; why their voice sounds cranky; we wonder out loud if they've been gone. If there's no big deal, which is usually the case it'll be announced that they're "under the weather" or "on assignment".
But when they suddenly leave and there's no rhyme or reason and we're left to wonder what's going on, then we all collectively want to know. So then by extension the right to privacy goes out the door whether we like it or not--really, whether they like it or not and that's the reality of having a high-profile job but it comes with the territory. They know it when they take the job.
The situation here was pretty much accelerated by readers who repeatedly asked me about the status of the morning radio announcer. I had no intention of even asking around but I didn't anticipate all the e-mails inquiring if "she was OK.", as if her absence was necessarily medical-related, but nevertheless people were concerned and wanted to know. She apparently has a following.
I don't know her status. And the radio station isn't talking and her colleagues merely say she's away and yes, it's a personal matter but since she's very prominently in the public arena some people are concerned. Which is perfectly normal. She's not a clerk at Macys--she's got a radio gig in SF.
The right to privacy sounds good on paper and it's one of our basic rights but truly this is a different world. Even to those who choose to take a public path of putting food on the table. If you doubt that, you're either in denial or delusional. Reality check.
Gossip? No, not really. And if interpreted that way, we're sorry because we weren't going to go that way even if we were privy to what was going on and we haven't any ideas other than to say we hope this cleared the matter up.
And as for the right to privacy, again, No , not in this world, the real world.
*Follow me on Twitter
If you are going to invade the privacy of someone, as you did in this case by reporting gossip that she is suffering from some unidentified serious personal/medical issue, please don't turn around and pat yourself on the back for not disclosing the specifics of the rumor.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think you deserve credit for not repeating an unsubstantiated rumor. The bottom line is you don't know her status. You could have left it at that. Instead you chose to tease with gossip and then sanctimoniously declare that you would never invade the privacy of someone, which you already just did.
Thank you. Your words precisely express many of our reaction.
DeleteLieberman is a gossip monger.
I like the cut of your jib.
DeleteWhere do I sign up for your newsletter?
Get the hell off your high horse, you anonymous stooge--read the damn post and go stick your head in the latrine.
ReplyDeleteHe was spot on and that's how you react. Telling.
DeleteTelling and yes, you too take a hike.
DeleteRich publishes his pretentious, self-serving excuses but when intellectually challenged responds with childish insults. Appropriate for an 8-year-old, embarrassing from an adult.
DeleteRich, you wonder why the real world never takes you seriously?
YOU should be embarrassed--YOU'RE the ONE who wrote back and responded which means YOU read this shit. I think maybe you should seek therapy.
DeleteYou obviously "take me seriously", moron.
Lieberman's reaction is all we need to know about this man's character.
DeleteSadly this website has quickly become trashy. Maybe it always has been that way.
Let's see how fast critical replies get censored.
And yet you come here to read TRASH...How ironic.
DeleteAlthough your understanding of privacy law could use a bit of tuning up, you generally have it right. people who put themselves in the public eye do not have the same privacy rights, in certain areas, as others. However there are limits.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the KGO announcer it's fair game to report she has been out on medical leave. The specifics of her condition, however, are a private matter between the announcer and her doctor and, to some extent, her employer.
Well-stated.
DeleteSo why is it necessary for Lieberman to report about the gossip surrounding her absence?
DeleteShe's a PUBLIC figure. READ the POST, Dummy.
Delete> In the case of the KGO announcer it's fair game to report she
Delete> has been out ON MEDICAL LEAVE. [emph mine]
Cite please? (I'm a lawyer who specializes in employee/employer law, so please be specific.)
12:13. Well Perry Mason, you could start with the 1st amendment.
DeleteYou might also get a copy of Robin Barne's book "Outrageous Invasions: Celebrities’ Private Lives, Media, and the Law."
Beyond that you'll have to do your own research, unless you want to pay me some billable hours. If you are really an attorney you will find a wealth of case law on the privacy rights of celebrities and the extent to which any medical information can be held as private. But then, a real attorney would already know that. ;-)
Misunderstanding the First Amendment is a dead giveaway that anon @3:07 doesn't know what he's talking about. Even a non-lawyer should understand that the First Amendment DOES NOT guarantee the right to say anything at anytime.
DeleteTry getting on an airline and shouting there's a bomb on the plane. You think the First Amendment allows you to say that anon @3:07?
>>> Even a non-lawyer should understand that the First Amendment DOES NOT guarantee the right to say anything at anytime.
DeleteAgreed, I still don't understand that myself. My wife almost had to physically restrain me from driving down Woodside road early yesterday morning just so I could shout "THEATER!" at a very crowded 6-alarm apartment fire...
8:46: We are not talking about shouting about bombs on planes, but the privacy rights of celebrities. Try to keep out of the red herring barrel, OK?
Delete10:50: Good one! (That was one nasty fire!)
Unless you are playing dumb 8:46, you're missing the point which is that the First Amendment is not necessarily determinitive here.
DeleteRich,
ReplyDeleteI re-read the post but forwent your suggestion about the latrine. My takeaway is that you lack self-awareness. First you claim that you "will not report and never have any personal/medical issues," then you go ahead and do just that, and finally you argue that public people aren't entitled to any privacy.
PLEASE, MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
Oh, and aren't you grown up enough to skip the childish name-calling and insults?
No ...and please, if you don't like me or the blog, leave. It's that simple.
DeleteIf you don't want comments, then remove the comments section from your site.
Delete"if you don't like me or the blog, leave." REALLY, you only want people who like you to visit your blog? Never heard that one before.
It's called disagreeing with an intellectually -honest form of disagreement and penning that out--NOT piously singling me out for doing what I do.
DeleteMr. Lieberman, is telling someone to stick their head down a latrine your idea of intellectual disagreement? My elementary school children must be great intellectuals.
DeleteYep, and you tell 'em so.
DeleteIt depends. If she has cancer,then that's news from a news figure. The public's right to know. In that situation "Respect my right to privacy" is what the famous like to use and abuse. I don't believe in that. Like Ralph's Parkinson's.he hid it,and yet the truth in the end was best---right?
ReplyDeleteIf its something like a child of hers is schizophrenic and she's dealing with that..then common sense is that's "family matters" and everybody understands. No need to make a family member who is in the private sector subject to something that might affect their lives in employment. I mean,unlike a celebrity they have no way to defend themselves.
You said "She has an illness" that's as generic as news can be on that topic.
Funny, Rich uses the "don't hate the player, hate the game' bit to cover his bad judgement when it serves him. He has much different expectations for others when the focus is on him.
ReplyDeleteTough to read, but true, accurate, and fair Rich.
I think that on air reporters, anchors and talk show hosts should be the first to realize that they sometimes have to sacrifice their own privacy because they are public figures. A media person or politician arrested for drunk driving or some crime for example is likely to get more coverage than the average citizen. Media people should also realize that a full disclosure helps combat rumors. If you or your company says you have an illness but won't disclose it people tend to think the worst.
DeleteIf you come out and say he had a heart attack or she has cancer people will wish that you have a speedy recovery. Since media people have a high profile disclosing an illness tends to encourage discussion about the symptoms and the importance of early detection. Former KTVU reporter Faith Fancher's disclosure of her cancer was a good example of that. There's no shame in admiting you have an illness.I think most people respect someone who admits they have a drug or alcohol addiction or depression and seeks treatment for it.
DeleteRemember when the Giants' Aubrey Huff walked off the field with no explanation, and it turns out he was having a massive panic attack and was too ashamed to tell anyone. When he did disclose the truth, there was a big outpouring of support followed by a very productive dialogue (I'm referencing the SF Chron's sports comment pages) where men opened up about the fact that yes, they too have anxiety disorders and depression.
The whole thing was very positive.
Joel, it's clear that you have given the issue some careful thought. Please add this to what you might consider. Public disclosures of personal issues do, in fact, affect more than just the "public" figure. Children and spouses are drawn into the circle as well. In local media, it's even more pronounced. On a small scale, you're a public figure. You didn't run for office. You do the news, and if you're on TV, people see you. You don't have a huge salary or PR handlers, or a buffer. You are accessible to anyone who recognizes you. Maybe you don't want your child to have to field questions about your illness.
DeleteI respect and applaud the late Ms.Fancher's choice, but I'm also glad that choice was hers to make.
Hey, haters.
ReplyDeleteTHIS...IS...A...BLOG!
Quit treating this as if it is a journalistic entity. It is NOT. IT IS A BLOG! Rich has made it clear on many occasions that it is indeed a blog. He makes no pretenses that he is a reporter or journalist. Not that there's something inherently wrong about NOT being a journalist. Rich is a blogger.
If you don't like what he espouses, then quit reading...and stick to you traditional journalistic sources.
If Rich wants to go ballistic, he is free to do so...BECAUSE IT IS A BLOG.
Me--I like the juicy gossip found on this site.
Keep up the good work on what is to me a "must-go-to" site, Rich!
Is that you, Rich?
DeleteNo, coward, unlike you when I rip, I don't post anonymously --if you'd bothered to take a look at the comments, I'm out in the open, it's being transparent.
DeleteBye Bye.
Rich, if you can't even respond civilly, how can you expect if from others? Why the incessant name-calling?
DeleteI have a toilet that needs flushing...
ReplyDeleteHey people if you don't like what Rich says at least be civilized about it. We agree to differ but some of the comments about Rich are way OFF BASE. I don't agree all the time but then I don't comment like some stupid people do and take everything that Rich says as the Bible or PERSONALLY. So if you don't like it don't look at it. Just be civilized is that too much too ask. Rich keep doing what you are doing it's fine with me.
ReplyDeleteAnon@4:41,
DeleteLIEBERMAN IS THE UNCIVILIZED ONE calling those who disagree with him - morons, dummies , stooges, and suggesting that they stick their heads down a latrine.
I haven't noticed much if any similar name calling from commenters get your facts straight.
It's a free country and he can respond the way he wants and it is his blog and if you don't like the way he respond you don't have to come back to it. Also he does what he does because some of the commenters deserve it.
DeleteNo one is Mr. Lieberman can't respond anyway he wants. The point is that he embarrasses himself with some of his intemperate and rude responses. If he expects to be respected he'll have to do better than offer childish insults.
DeleteThis thread is a perfect example of how laughable Tricky Dick's proclamation that he "LOVES A GOOD DEBATE" truly is! The guy has paper thin skin. He can't debate so he resorts to name calling when in a bind. Go ahead keep censoring big guy!
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know all the details of this situation... personal, intimate, or otherwise... befriend someone at the NSA. I'm sure they know, or have access to knowing, every last little detail of this sort of situation, even if it's happening to a semi-public figure in Europe, or Asia. They probably even maintain a log of every time that Vladimir Putin farts.
ReplyDeleteOnkel Adolph would have been proud of this agency of lawbreakers, who are giving the finger to our Constitution every day, and getting away with it. They should wear brown shirts, not black suits.
I might not agree with Rich on this one necessarily, but I'll go ahead and congratulate him for at least making a cogent blog entry for once. Almost like it was ghost written...
ReplyDeleteUnless Mr. Lieberman learned about this reporter's absence because it was reported to him as her employer, physician, or insurer, or because she personally told him in confidence, I don't see how anyone can saddle him with an ethical responsibility for protecting her privacy. We have no reason to believe it was she who shared this information with him, so it is quite apparent that her personal information had made the move from private to public knowledge prior to his learning it. How can he be held ethically responsible for protecting the privacy with which he was never invested?
ReplyDeleteThe man's running a broadcast news blog, for Christ's sake, how fair is it to condemn him for failing to treat the news leaks and/or industry gossip that comes his way to a higher standard than that by which it came to him?