When talking about professional athletes or people of the like, you usually have to take things with a grain of salt when talking about media. These people are celebrities in their own right and are constantly under a spotlight that most normal people aren’t and a prime example of this is just how much they are on or in the presence of camera’s. One of the more ethical topics in the National Hockey League has been the story of former San Jose Sharks winger, Evander Kane. Kane certainly has all the skill in the world, but he has found himself in boat loads of trouble dating back to last year.
SAN JOSE, CA – FEBRUARY 29: Evander Kane #9 of the San Jose Sharks prepares to face-off against the Pittsburgh Penguins at SAP Center on February 29, 2020 in San Jose, California. (Photo by Brandon Magnus/NHLI via Getty Images)
The most recent drama Kane has found himself in is with wife, Anna Kane. The couple are amidst a crazy divorce battle that keeps getting crazier and crazier. The whole ethical case we’re going to get into started once Evander won sole custody of their 1-year-old daughter, Kensington. (New York Post, Lemoncelli) This sent Anna on a spiral of questionable media ethics decisions that we’ll now get into.
After the custody decision was made in Evander’s favor, Anna took to Instagram and started posting some really revealing things about her soon to be ex-husband. The first thing she did was post a private video of Evander pointing a “loaded gun” at her. This is obviously a terrible look for Evander and should never happen, but he defended himself by saying it was a “photo shoot”, which apparently worked based upon the fact that the courts think and still think that Anna has untreated mental health issues. (New York Post, Lemoncelli) To me, I think releasing the video to a private court room is really necessary here, but releasing a private video (no matter how bad) to the public is unethical. You have to think of all parties when you deal with social media, especially when young children are involved in any way. Now the Kane’s child has a video of her father pointing a gun around, which I’m sure she doesn’t want to grow up with. At the end of the day what both Evander and Anna Kane did in this instance I believe is very wrong and you can tell that the relationship has spiraled to a point of no return for the couple.
THE 2019 ESPYS PRESENTED BY CAPITAL ONE – The world’s best athletes and biggest stars will join host Tracy Morgan for “The 2019 ESPYS presented by Capital One.” The star-studded evening celebrates the best moments from the year in sports and will air live from the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles on WEDNESDAY, JULY 10 (8:00-11:00 p.m. EDT), on ABC. (Image Group LA via Getty Images)
EVANDER KANE, ANNA KANE
This past July was also an interesting media ethics
development. Since Anna has been so upset about the entire legal proceedings
and really upset about her relationship with Evander, she took to social media
once again. She first accused Kane of cheating, that their home was being
seized by the bank and then said that he was betting on NHL games including ones
he was playing in. Evander denied all of the claims and the NHL even did an
investigation, but “could not substantiate any of the allegations. What does
this say about Anna? Was she trying to take advantage of what was already known
of her husband to make him appear in a worse light? Or was she trying to get
the truth out there and since he is a professional athlete it is harder to “get
them canceled”. Since the NHL did a full investigation and found nothing to be
true about what she said, on top of the fact that the court had concerns about
her mental stability, I think that Kane – even though he has plenty of flaws –
is more in the right here than Anna. Going to social media and spreading
misinformation is not the way to go and both Evander and Anna should look at
themselves in the mirror after this entire process is over.
The digital age moves at breathtaking speed, and how it transformed the way people communicate in Vietnam is no different. As digital technologies have become entwined in the way people connect and relate to one another, Vietnam, like the rest of Southeast Asia, is undergoing radical social transformations. Fast expanding digital infiltration and mobile technology adoption mean that people are increasingly performing significant parts of their everyday lives online. The rise of the internet and the different media platforms have become increasingly important in how the public gathers information as well as form opinions on day-to-day life as well as political opinions. In June of 2021, the Vietnamese Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) rolled out a set of guidelines under the name 874/QĐ-BTTTT This new code will function as Vietnam’s national social media guidelines, encouraging users to share positive content about the country. Certain restrictions apply to social media users and companies, with social media providers in Vietnam being required to follow local laws and regulations when it comes to removing different content from different respective platforms. While not a definitive legal binding regulation, the guideline raises ethical concerns on free speech and the conflict of interest between government agencies and the different platforms as well as its users. Was this guideline a solution to combat the rise of defamation, fake accounts, spam, and trolls on the internet in the country or is it another way for the Vietnamese government to keep a check on its citizen’s digital movement?
Trinh Ho, Vietnam New and Old.
Vietnam is a rapidly growing country, both from its GDP and population as well as its digital media consumption. A report from Stasia, Vietnam has around 72 million active users on different social media which is around a 74% penetration rate. Vietnam is a large market for Facebook with 74 million active users and generates over $1 Billion Dollars in revenue. Late in November of last year, Reuters reported the Vietnamese government’s demand for Facebook to censor more of their platforms in the country. Vietnam is not new to censorship and regulation of speech on any type of media and for social media platforms that are run by private entities, Vietnam is approaching uncharted territories in its “struggle” for power over its citizens as the population grows younger and “smarter”. Vietnam threatened to ban the platform if it fails to increase its censorship of content coming out of Vietnam. To not lose out on the large revenue that can be generated from the country, Facebook has seemingly given into the Vietnamese government demands as data from its transparency report, shows that Facebook removed nearly 3000 posts from June of 2020 to January of 2021. While Facebook community standards guideline states “The goal of our Community Standards is to create a place for expression and give people a voice. The Facebook company wants people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable.” giving into a government agency seems like Facebook is failing to uphold its mission to give everyone a voice. The battle for free speech between social media platforms and governmental agencies is not a new topic and Vietnam remains under scrutiny on how they are imposing restrictions on media but we have to put Facebook’s ethical stance on the issue under question as the platform seemingly prioritizes profit over the wellbeing and freedom of expressions of its users.
Young people surf the Internet on their phones in Tao Dan Park in Ho Chi Minh City. Photo by Shutterstock/Anh Huy.
In our day and age with the many factors that are affecting the socioeconomic landscape of different countries and societies, whether it’s false information, malicious intent, financial decisions, or government agencies’ influence, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for social media platforms to remain neutral platforms for everyone to voice their opinions. While a private entity and can change its policies as they see fit, giant social media providers such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. have the influence and the responsibility to be a space where everyone can have a voice without judgment or influence. This move by Facebook and the Vietnamese government can affect and hinder how the Vietnamese public voices their opinions and view the integrity of the firm. For me, it’s not new that the Vietnamese government wants to track and control what we say but it is confusing to see a private entity that is Facebook to give in to the government’s demand. As for me and many of my peers, social media will remain a big part of our personal and professional lives, but after the guideline and Facebook’s action, there will be a lot of ambiguity in what I can and can’t do on social media that can affect me.
Reality television can be problematic to watch as it allows viewers to make assumptions about people that they only really know from edited pieces the show decides to air of them. This can lead to false perceptions of who a person really is and lead to negative criticisms of a person where it may not be warranted.
Selling Sunsets Star Davina Patratz has been highly criticized as being the “villain” of the show in season 3. The show tends to highlight the negative things that she says and does and rarely, shows her as a good person. She is often seen on the show causing drama and conflict among the real estate agents and not listening to the viewpoints of others.
In the season 3 finale she is shown starting an argument with another employee, Chriselle about her divorce and whose fault it really was. This has led to her being hated and getting a lot of backlash online, but is all this hate really justified or is this a product of the producers creating a character for her?
In an interview with Vulture she states that, “I can also tell you with certainty that you don’t know my entire personality. You don’t see very much of me — you only see maybe 10 percent of me. When you don’t see any other part, then your perception is only what you see: You think that person equals something negative, but whatever was shown was pretty harsh. That’s what you identify that person with, but that is not the entire person.”
She claims that the show manipulates the footage in order to make her come off as a lot ruder than she really is. She explains how you only see a portion of who she is and never get a complete idea of who she really is as a person, because of the way the producers edit the footage. She explains in another interview with RadioTimes that when talking about an argument she had on the show with one of the agency’s bosses, Jason, “‘There’s a lot of joking around and fun that we’re having as well,” she told us. “And I don’t know if you necessarily see that, especially from my character on the show. You know, I’m not a one-dimensional person, nobody is, and you really cannot define anyone based on the show, right?”’.
With that being said, are producers at fault for airing these clips, or is it the fault of the agents for saying what they said on the show? I think that this ethical issue becomes tricky when you look deeply into it. The allure of watching reality tv is seeing the arguments between castmates, so obviously this is what the producers are going to want to air, even if it makes the people look bad. However, I think that sometimes the producers can go overboard with their editing when portraying characters. Although they are using footage of what the star is actually saying in the moment, they are using it to put a negative spin on the character and often do not include parts of the conversation where the individual is coming off a lot nicer.
I believe the main ethical issue here and what is difficult to put blame on is how the producers are able to create a false persona of a character, rather than the character being able to create their own persona. No matter how many positive things you say or do during filming, the producers are only going to air what they think is going to give them views, and typically that is not characters being nice to each other, but rather the huge arguments. Working together and spending so much time together outside of work, friends are bound to get into arguments, but the way that reality tv spins these arguments to create a persona for a person is ethically wrong and should not be allowed.
CNN’s Brian Stelter (Chief Media Correspondent) reports on Chris Cuomo’s suspension
The sexual
misconduct allegations against former Gov. Andrew Cuomo have been covered by
national news outlets from early 2021 through his eventual resignation
in August of this year. Since those allegations surfaced, Chris Cuomo and
CNN agreed that he would not be able to objectively report on the subject,
since it was involving his family. CNN confirmed this in a statement
made by the network in May 2021 saying “Chris has not been involved in
CNN’s extensive coverage of the allegations against Governor Cuomo — on air or
behind the scenes… In part because, as he has said on his show, he could never
be objective.” It was recently learned, however, that Chris Cuomo had been
using his position at CNN to advise
his brother’s legal team for his defense.
In 2020, Chris Cuomo often had his brother (then Governor), Andrew Cuomo on his show Cuomo Prime Time.
The documents that were released on Monday (Nov. 29, 2021), were not the first sign of a potentially unethical connection between the brothers, though. In May, when CNN released the above statement about Chris Cuomo’s involvement in the network’s reporting, CNN was made aware that C. Cuomo had participated in strategy calls to help his brother. At the time, CNN called it “inappropriate” and C. Cuomo was told to stop doing so.
Evidently, that did not happen.
It was learned this week that Chris Cuomo continued to use his power as a journalist to gain information from sources and other journalists about details involving his brother’s case. In depicting the information within the documents, Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter wrote,
“The documents released by New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday included text messages and transcripts of interviews with investigators who led the probe into allegations against the governor. The cache of documents included text messages between Chris Cuomo and Melissa DeRosa, a then-top aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, that suggested he was instrumental in working to craft a defense against a flood of sexual misconduct allegations. The text messages also revealed that Chris Cuomo sought to use his connections in the press to help prepare the then-governor’s team as accusers started to make their stories public”(Darcy, Stelter, 2021).
Chris Cuomo spoke about his suspension on his SiriusXM show saying, “It hurts to even say it. It’s embarrassing, but I understand it…the last thing I ever wanted to do was compromise any of my colleagues and do anything but help.”
According
to the Society of Professional
Journalists Code of Ethics, Cuomo’s action will have challenged a few
subsections within the “Act Independently” category of the guidelines. It is evident
that in acting to aid his brother, he neglected to avoid a conflict of interest,
avoid practices that compromised his integrity, and above all, made his primary
obligation to his brother (who at one point was a government representative)
over public interest.
It is not unreasonable to think that anyone would feel pressured to help a family member when their occupation privies them to potentially helpful information. However, as the press is often considered a fourth pillar of government, it is the primary duty of a journalist to understand the power of their position and either maintain objectivity, or completely remove oneself from the equation when it is not possible. Chris Cuomo was given the chance to remove himself with integrity, but failed to do so.
Kim Kardashian has the solution for creating your best body, and it’s no longer shape-wear but “solution-wear.” In 2019, Kim Kardashian released the name of her new “solution-wear” line Kimono, which is a riff on her own name “Kim.” Kimono was meant to be a line of undergarments that shape and flatter the female form. But it’s not the clothes that have landed Kim in hot water, but the name itself.
Many people are not a fan of her solution. They are calling cultural appropriation on Kim’s new clothing brand, saying that the name Kimono is not appropriate for her line. Many claimed that Kim Kardashian chose the name not based on the cultural significance behind it, but rather that it sounded good and included her name.
Kimono is a traditional garment in Japanese culture. It is worn for special occasions and celebrations. It is typically a long robe made of silk with intricate detailing or embroidery.
People were even more outraged when they learned that Ms. Kardashian had applied for trademarks for her Kimono lines. She has applied for different trademarks surrounding the variations on the name and its design, as well as advertising, business and retail rights. Many were outraged at the idea of their traditional garments being overshadowed and sharing a name with undergarments.
A petition was created on change.org that called the brand a “horrible cultural disrespect.” There was also a trending hashtag on Twitter #KimOhNo to show people’s disapproval of the name.
Initially, Kim defended the name and claimed that she couldn’t change it. She later changed her mind after the mayor of Kyoto, Japan wrote a personal letter to Kim Kardashian to explain the significance of the Kimono garment and how important it is to Japanese culture.
Is the solution to her culturally appropriated “solution-wear” acceptable?
I believe that Kim did everything in her power to correct the issue. If she hadn’t changed the name after this controversy, her brand would not have been as successful. She had to change the name for the sake of her brand and to appease the people she offended. Changing the name was like hitting 2 birds with one stone, however I believe she only threw that stone to save her sales, not to make people feel better.
Many argue that since this isn’t the first time Kim has been accused of cultural appropriation that she hasn’t really learned her lesson. In the past, Kim has been accused of this before by wearing cornrows in her hair, wearing other clothing and jewelry that is traditional to other cultures and has even been accused of “black-fishing,” which is when someone tans their skin to appear mixed-race or black.
So was this whole incident a big accident or just another incident in Kim Kardashians list of culturally insensitive acts for attention? We will see.
Love the or hate them we all know who the Kardashians are. Their problems and scandals may not be of great importance to you, but one thing that I’m sure we can all agree on would be that trauma is nothing to joke about and it’s definitely not something to base a Halloween costume off of. This may sound confusing, so let me explain.
There’s just so much ethically wrong with this whole situation. It’s definitely hard to defend the Kardashian family for some, mostly because of just how wealthy they are. But even more so because of what I mentioned previously about how during this time Kim was constantly promoting her lavish lifestyle on social media. But, if we look at this from the angle of deontological ethics, which say that “acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare”, basically what’s wrong is wrong, we start to see how inappropriate this costume really is regardless of what your opinion is of Kim Kardashian. When you think about it, something so hurtful like this costume would never come out if this robbery had happened to an average person, but since it happened to someone so famous like Kim, people feel the need to capitalize on the issue in order to make a profit and publicity. In fact, Costumeish Vice President, Johnathan Weeks made a comment about why the costume was made, Weeks said:
“…the costume is meant to incite a strong reaction and that Halloween is a holiday that calls for some humor. It’ll make people either cringe or laugh”
Right away this statement tells me that this costume is for publicity purposes, to get the website’s name in the public’s mind and that there’s virtually no concern for the Kardashian families feelings or welfare. Which brings me to then look at large amounts of negative loyalties that this company has towards itself. In most cases, having a loyalty to ones self is a positive thing. But here we have the complete opposite, where a company has a loyalty to itself where it does not care about the harm they inflict onto people, they only care about outcomes that can benefit them. There is the saying that “all publicity is good publicity” which I truly think is a key strategy of this website. But when it all comes down to it, if there’s too much bad and you’re dealing with a powerful family like the Kardashians, it’s only a matter of time before you’ve got to bow down. Which is exactly what Johnathan Weeks did by issuing an apology to the family. I think what we can learn from all of this, is that everyone eventually in their lives goes through trauma and absolutely does not deserve to have that trauma used a device to benefit someone else. As a society we need to have loyalties to each other, to ensure and maintain respect always.
Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci premiered in theaters Nov. 24th, but despite a killer cast and rave reviews from viewers, the film lacked approval from the very people it’s based on- the surviving Gucci family. A statement was first issued by ANSA, an Italian news agency, and translated by Variety news:
Despite claiming they were inaccurately portrayed in the film, there has been no legal action taken from the Gucci family. As producer of the film, Scott has been very dismissive in his response to these allegations. Understandably so, as criticism from the family dates all the way back to April of 2021-and was very offensive to the cast.
It’s hard to take the claims and critiques from the Gucci family seriously when their criticisms have been nothing but superficial and judgmental. Although the film is telling the story of their family’s history, and they very much should have a say in how it’s told, it seems as though they’re quick to judge anything. Consultation from the family would have resulted in a completely different film, one that might not have been as entertaining and successful as what was released.
The issue surrounding the release of House of Gucci in theaters displays a very intricate media ethics issue. On one hand, the offense taken by the Gucci family is warranted, being that they are the center of the story and the reason this film even exists. On the other hand, their rude critiques and the judgemental tones of their criticisms minimize the importance of their opinion. From an ethical standpoint, one has to take into consideration the Gucci family’s criticisms of the film, however their handling of the situation was just as unethical as the production of the film itself.
Facebook’s fourth quarter reports declare that as of December 2020, they had 2.80 billion monthly active users utilizing their social media platform. Among those users, posts were made ranging across different topics, however the ones I’d like to bring light to are the posts litigants bring into the courtroom. In a Time Magazine article titled “Facebook and Divorce: Airing the Dirty Laundry” written by Belinda Luscombe, Luscombe goes into detail about the frightening access users have for information that can be used against them in court trials, specifically Family Court.
Luscombe mentions a specific example of a husband, Patrick, and wife, Tammy, who after Patrick informed Tammy he wanted a divorce, Tammy took to his FaceBook page and began leaving comments regarding their personal life. After Patrick blocked Tammy, he received messages from friends who told Patrick that Tammy was using a friend’s account to find women he was conversing with, and send them emails telling them his marital status. Luscombe concluded her article with a piece of advice, stating that “It seems everybody — except perhaps some lawyers — would be better off if divorcing spouses gave each other some space on MySpace. But when confused, anguished people look for ways to work through their feelings, a social-networking site can be an almost irresistible venue.”
The ethical issue at hand is the typical First Amendment violation we see in most cases regarding social media – we are using our freedom of speech, and those words should not be used against us. Unfortunately, we live in a society where we are held to the standards of our words and actions, and the Congressional Research Service had published a congressional report in 2014 authored by attorney Kathleen Ann Ruane titled “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment” which lays out a multitude of examples where the Supreme Court has ordered exceptions to this violation, which there are plenty of. Notably, these exceptions range from topics of obscenity to defamation. If there are exceptions that range through the everyday exposure we face, what about social media exceptions?
The Congressional Research Service has published a more recent report in 2019 titled “Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content” that specifically focuses on the aspect of social media being governed by the First Amendment. The report raises the issue of federal law being strict when it comes to social media owner’s own regulation of their media sites, and speaks about how lawsuits that intended to have content removed were “largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law.” The First Amendment actually makes it harder for any governmental intervention, due to the possibility of the government stepping upon our First Amendment rights to regulate what is being said over social media.
The Congressional Research Service broke down the topic of First Amendment protections with regard to online behavior and speech by explaining to the reader there are a few steps that need to be taken first in order to decide what protections are available for use in court. Speech versus conduct is the first layer of diversity, then it pertains to whether the content in question is for personal usage or commercial use, which advertisements are considered to be. Commercial content actually has less protection than our personal content does. If the content is promoting or advocating for violence, like the issue raised in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969), the Supreme Court decided that “advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”. This decision can be interpreted as if social media users are advocating online for violent actions or behavior, then the user’s state has the right to prohibit the speech without violation of the user’s First Amendment rights.
As with most issues that pertain to our First Amendment rights, there are grey areas which require the court’s intervention, however it is fair to assume that there are no legal issues with utilizing a user’s social media content in court trials. The age old reminder of “be careful what you post!” stands true to this day, especially in the current digital age where our virtual footprint is so easily accessible to others. Think twice before you post that rant about your husband to your followers, it might be used against you later!
FILE – New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo appears during a news conference about COVID-19 at the State Capitol in Albany, N.Y., on Dec. 3, 2020, left, and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo attends the 12th annual CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on Dec. 9, 2018. Transcripts released Monday, Nov. 29, 2021, shed new light on CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s behind-the-scenes role advising his brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in the face of sexual harassment allegations that forced him from office. (Mike Groll/Office of Governor of Andrew M. Cuomo via AP, left, and Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The last name Cuomo has been in the news cycle what seems to be quite often in the past year and for nearly nothing positive. Andrew Cuomo, the now ex-governor of New York, resigned from his position as governor this past August due to allegations of sexual misconduct. As of yesterday, Chris Cuomo, Andrew’s brother, and host of “Cuomo Prime Time” on CNN has been suspended after the New York State Attorney General’s Office released thousands of documents and messages that showed how the host was helping his brother to avoid the scandal. CNN acknowledged that they appreciated the position that Chris Cuomo was in due to his relationship with his brother as any news outlet would have loved to have the brother of the then governor of NY as one of their hosts. However, it was not until the release of all of these documents that CNN then took action in suspending Chris.
In some of these messages, Chris Cuomo was asking his brother’s assistants for “all the best facts” (NPR) to offer reporters and news outlets. He would also ask around for information regarding his brother’s case in an effort to “help” him. Now, this also becomes a larger problem as Chris Cuomo had previously told investigators that he “was not on his brother’s team” (NPR). However, the documents released can prove otherwise. The overarching issue here is that Chris Cuomo disregarded the conduct of journalists by feeding information to his brother and his team that he was privy to. Chris Cuomo should have made a decision to either be a journalist or be a political advisor, not both because at that point you’re both creating the story while also telling it.
Chris Cuomo | CREDIT: THEO WARGO/GETTY
There is something to be said about the distorted familial loyalty that Chris Cuomo demonstrated however it does not excuse him from acting in an unethical way. When you have as much influence and access as someone such as Chris Cuomo it is unethical to use that influence in order to feed someone else information that they may not be privy to. A lot of times news outlets, journalists, and reporters have access to information about politicians that the politicians may not have access to, and for good reason. If politicians were aware of everything that was about to be said about them in the media then there would be an attempt to control that and lead to media that was even more opinionated. Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, said “journalists must understand they’re working for the public, not politicians.” This statement by Kirtley stood out because it simply defines the duties that journalists have to the people. Although Chris Cuomo continuously noted that he never reported on the situation his brother was in or tried to influence the coverage it was not the forward-facing actions that were the issue but rather the action of Chris Cuomo gathering information of what other allegations may be heading his brother’s way as if to give them the chance to squash them before the press got wind of it. This is an example of a journalist displaying a complete disregard for their duty of informing the public.
Jan 2015 – Multi Grammy winner, Adele, and her son Angelo spotted by the paparazzi. Adele, who is very private about raising her son, can be seen visually upset and distressed as she is trying to shield her son from the cameras and flashes while trying to navigate through.
Merriam-Webster’s legal dictionary defines the age of majority as “the age at which a person is granted by law the rights (as ability to sue) and responsibilities (as liability under contract) of an adult.” Also known as the legal age, age of majority is set at 18 for most of the states in the U.S.. Unless granted emancipation, minors rely on their parents to provide them with basic needs, and protect their social and legal wellbeing. When these rights are threatened, however, it is the most natural thing for parents to advocate for what’s best for their children.
Such is the battle many celebrity parents are fighting today, and have been for the past few years. Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard, John Krasinski, Blake Lively,Gigi Hadid to name a few of many, these high profile parents are growing more concerned each day with protecting their children’s privacy in the face of this exploitative world of tabloid journalism and the ever growing demand for a closer look into celebrities’ lives prompted by the ease of social media.
As I’ve mentioned in my earlier blog post, Reaching the Golden Mean in Tabloid Journalism: How do we shift “Celebrities vs. Paparazzi” to “Celebrities & Paparazzi”?, there is a certain level of transparency and sacrificing privacy that comes with being a public figure. While most celebrities try to put on a polite face when faced with the consequences of this unspoken social contract, offer a professional smile, a quick wave, or a short Q&A session at abruptly being confronted by paparazzi during the simplest of days, one milestone changes the rules of the game: having children.
Historically, members of the tabloid journalism community have been criticized by celebrities and the public for their tendency to fail to practice ethical journalism in obtaining their content. In most cases, however, these actions are often justified by the rhetoric that celebrities signed up for this position, it comes with the profession, and that they are more than fairly compensated for the invasion of their privacy. Some might even argue that celebrities’ kids are celebrities by association and therefore the same rules apply. Unlike their parents who have willingly accepted a life in front of the public eye, however, celebrities’ children don’t have the legal or social standing to make an informed decision on giving consent or legally fighting for their privacy. Their legal status combined with their parents’ cries for privacy, the tabloids’ continued disregard for journalism ethics, especially when children are involved, is quite concerning.
May 2015 – Actor, Ashton Kutcher, shared his frustration on the paparazzi invading the privacy of his daughter he shares with actress, Mila Kunis, with the above tweet.
Photo Creds: Twitter Screenshot – https://twitter.com/aplusk/status/600739048513150977July 2017 – Two years later, Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis were caught by the paparazzi and can be seen trying to shield their daughter’s face.
Photo Creds: https://www.contactmusic.com/ashton-kutcher/news/ashton-kutcher-paparazzi-kids_5762158Same day – Kutcher took his frustration to social media with the above tweet asking fans and members of the media to respect their daughter’s privacy and choices.
September 2013 – Actress, Halle Berry (left), and actress Jennifer Garner (right), giving their testimonies in front of the Senate Public Safety Committee and the Assembly Judiciary Committee to get bill SB 606 passed in efforts to protect children of celebrities from tabloids.
Photo Creds: https://www.today.com/popculture/jennifer-garner-halle-berry-get-emotional-plea-protect-kids-paparazzi-6C10916515 – (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
While this bill, SB 606, was a big win for the celebrity families of California, and created national legal precedence in this battle for ethical preservation of minors’ privacy regardless of who their parents are, it’s far from victory: celebrities who reside in any of the other 49 states continue to struggle with the issue.
July 2021 – Actress, Blake Lively, took it to Instagram to criticize Daily Mail Australia for editing her pictures to narrate it as Lively and her three children sending smiles to the camera when in reality, Lively felt attacked and taunted by the paparazzi and was forced to pose for the photo so the tabloid journalists would leave her and her daughters alone.
Photo Creds: Instagram Screenshot – https://www.instagram.com/p/CRaYEhsNowN/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f634467d-adb7-4b3e-bf2d-3e1435c02a95July 2021 – Super model and new mom of a baby girl she shares with singer Zayn Malik, Gigi Hadid shared this emotional message on Twitter, asking fans and tabloids to respect her daughter’s privacy by not posting about her daughter on social media or by blurring her face if they have to use photos of her.
So what’s the solution? A common dilemma in the world of communication, media and ethics is that not everything that is legal is ethical, and not everything ethical is legal. I believe to eliminate the gray area in this specific situation is to enact federal laws that clearly state the limits when it comes to the exploitation of children. Of course there are certain cases where celebrity parents consent to having their children included such as when they agree to take their kids to red carpet events or other instances where they are aware there will be paparazzi presence. While these controlled environments where everything is monitored, and necessary precautions are taken, offer a positive experience for everyone involved; paparazzi hiding in bushes, stalking children, causing physical disturbances just for a photo opportunity is dangerous, and, in my opinion, requires clear legal guidelines to eliminate the gray space between ethical and legal to protect children who depend on adults to advocate for them.
