On Sunday, Gabrielle Giffords' team released several photos of the congresswoman, looking radiant and focused, no make-up, no wig to hide her scars. The photos offered a couple of angles which show clearly the damage (to satisfy our curiosity) but also show how amazingly whole and beautiful she is, a scant few months after such a devastating injury.
These photos were released only when Rep. Giffords was well enough to decide she was ready, all previous photos were very, very respectful of her privacy, which remained intact throughout the duration of her hospitalization. This left me wondering how in the world they managed that in this age of WikiLeaks and Lulz Security and the WeinerPhone of Doom. Think of the number of people who worked in the various medical facilities, her trip to watch her husband's space shuttle launch, all the opportunities to get that tantalizing photographic glimpse that probably would have carried a six figure price tag to the right tabloid, and yet that did not happen. Certainly the professionals entrusted with maintaining her privacy have a duty to do so, but this sort of duty is often for sale if the price is right. I'm completely in awe of the way Giffords and her family were able to pull off this nearly unheard-of level of privacy in these intrusive modern times of ours, however they managed it. Editorials are already calling into question what remaining privacy Giffords has a right to, but as a public servant injured in the line of duty I think she deserves at least enough time to recover sufficiently in order to present a positive impression in her first public appearance.
This actually kept me up last night, contemplating the TMZ-ified times we live in, and how our culture of celebrity has warped our ideas of privacy. How easy it would have been for a Drudge or a Breitbart to justify publishing photos that violated medical privacy, claiming the public's right to know outweighed the expectation of confidentiality and the family's wishes. How socity and the media have come to expect, even demand unfettered and unlimited access into every aspect of our public figures' lives. The ubiquity of pocket-sized devices capable of recording and transmitting images and video has expanded the theoretical level of this access, and we have adjusted our expectations accordingly.
I don't know how to find the fine line between our right to know, and our Schadenfreudian tendency to want to know. Do Giffords' constituents have the right to monitor her recovery? Do Anthony Weiner's constituents need to hear from every comely coed who has gazed upon a digitized version of his chiseled abs (or ... whatever)? On the surface these two situations seem almost opposite, but it all comes down to boundaries. We seem to be headed in the direction of breaking them down -- do we need to put some of them back up?
Fellow Lizard,
ReplyDeleteI thought Rep. Giffords looked wonderful in the photos. It's good to see her smiling like that!
As for the line, I don't know either, but I suppose one can't win with the public either way: Caliban rages just as hard when he doesn't see his face in a glass as when he does, as Wilde said.
My guess is that part of the bad behavior surrounding the violation of celebrities and politicians' privacy has to do with many people's resentment of superior status: they want even the rich, powerful, and famous to appear just as petty and small as they are themselves. It seems as if today, we only have some privacy if we don't matter outside our immediate circle. If you're a prominent politician or a hotshot TV-worthy person in any field, you might as well kiss your privacy goodbye. Anyone going into the business from this point forward should know better than to think that wrongdoing or even plain silly behavior won't be discovered, sooner or later. Probably sooner.
Rep. Giffords' situation is different -- she did nothing wrong, and I think most people recognize that if there is a line, it's got to be drawn at such cases: she deserves all the time she needs to get well and present herself to her constituents as she thinks appropriate; I'm sure most of them wouldn't have it any other way, and even the press had to respect that or risk fierce condemnation. I think she will run up against a decision-making time soon: for her own sake, she's got to feel well enough to serve in Congress the way she wants to by filing time for 2012, and if she doesn't feel she's ready, there would be no point in enduring the frustration of a campaign even though I think she would win handily. Here's a whole epoch's worth of dino wishes that she recovers fully enough to keep going in her line of work.
Dino, I totally agree that these are entirely different situations, apples and oranges (or apples and orangutans?) I must confess I didn't feel good comparing the two, but I couldn't help thinking how our tabloid-addled culture demands more and more access no matter what. The editorial linked above appeared in an Everett, WA newspaper which is well outside Rep. Giffords' district, yet the author felt they had the right to register their disapproval of the level of disclosure -- as the whole damn country and much of the Democratic party has decided it has a say New York's 9th district's choice of representation.
ReplyDeleteLooking back now, I kind of wish I'd written that whole post differently, but I really was kept awake quite late by all those thoughts, and then I had some seriously weird dreams about the subject. I think that adversely affected my judgment :)