Category: Let's talk
so, this weekend the newspapers have been full of the fact that our estemed, or not so esttemed deputy prime minister has been playing away from home, a whole 5 pages of the lurid details of John prescott's affair with his secretary were published in this Sunday's daily mail. A story for which the secretary apparently received £100000. But, do we weally need to know? Does anyone really care if someone who is in the public eye is cheating on their wife? It's not right that he is doing so, but in reality, people don't really look up to John prescott and say "well if it's alright for him then it's alright for me", so, is it really in the public interest to know about these things?
Claire, normally I would say it's not something we need to know, but when you look back at how he and his colleagues behaved towards the conservative government when they were in power then I think it only right if he's been doing similar things then it should be made public and he should go as he hounded the opposition so many years ago.
so he's a hipocrit, but he's a politician, so it's one and the same thing. And apart from the fact that we don't really care, who really wants to read about how he and his secretary had sex in his office? please!
well, guess it fills up the newspapers
It's a good point but I suppose there's got to be a huge demand for such a story, else the newspaper wouldn't have been willing to pay such a big sum. Hope the secretary is having a good time in Barbados, or wherever she finds herself these days, in a big house with a few cocktails on tap and a copy of the newspaper. I still think elected ministers and others who have been voted in by the public should set example on the personal as well as professional level. If they can't control themselves for 4 years and leave their secretaries alone, why should they be trusted with the fates of 50 million people. Sure personal and professional isn't the same thing but once you know someone can't be trusted with his personal life you feel less inclined to count on his words and promises in general. Whether this holds true I'm not sure but I know if he worked for our company e.g. and had done such things with a secretary here he'd be fired without questions or comments on the spot.
I don't agree, what people do in their personal lives can offer differe widely from what they do while they are employed. Yes he's in government, but he's not exactly the minister for morals, it's different if what he's been doing affects his work, i.e. in the case of David Blunkett, where his relationship spilled over into the home office and a visa was issued for a nanny, he let his private life become intertwined with his job, and it was only fair that he had to go, but in the case of John Prescott he had an affair, and whether he had sex with her in his office or not is still in question as he has denied that this ever happened, so let's leave that out of the equasion for a bit, but he did something in his personal life, maybe he made a mistake, maybe he didn't, but it didn't affect his job, he didn't abuse his position during the course of this relationship, why should he lose his job as as a result, yes maybe in most companies if someone was caught having sex in an office they would be dismissed, but if you were simply cheating on your wife with another member of staff your employer generally couldn't care less.
ah but once you place yourself in the public eye and in public service. You better be pretty clean because it's all for the public to see. Remember Bill?
He should be able to control it a bit and bang who ever he wants once out of office.
It also is a matter of how far up you are in the "food chain" so to speak. In the U.S. if anyone in a managing position is caught having an affair within the company that person is fired even if it can be claimed it was the "personal life" because it tarnishes the company's image (there was a big case of this with a Boeign vice president and a secretary some 3 or 4 years ago). I don't know about else where but Wachovia e.g. has employee code of conduct that gives them the right to fire you if you are caught repeatedly breaking it, it even includes frequenting strip clubs as something not condoned by the corporation and possible grounds for dismissal. I honestly don't think it matters so much if you are, say, the mail man, but once you get higher up you have more responsibility, more money and more influence. Whether it's right or not that'swhere your personal life comes under scrutiny. In principal I agree with you, the office aside, the fact he had an affair does not necessarily make him a worse politician (although it might do so) but ultimately the public has to decide. He represents his party and if thepublic sees his relationship as an undesirable thing it can be used by the party's opponents for general ellection. For the future of the party then they must decide how damaging it is to their over all image vs how much he contributes to the positive image, if the damage is too great they must get rid of him to stand a chance in the next ellection.
And also, since this took place in the office, obviously he most likely billed the hours he spent messing around with the secretary and got paid for them, out of the pockets of tax payers, which makes this particular relationship relevant to the public.
I guess I see both sides of the issue. I agree with you that the coverage is not absolutely necessary and the office aside his personal life should be his own affair but on the other hand I feel people this high up, that get paid this much and have this much responsibility need to recognize it and live accordingly for the time they are in office, after all they always have a choice not to run for this position and it's not as if it's a life long job, not doing so shows lack of common sense.
Cheers
-B
"he represents his party and therefore the public should decide", maybe, but where do you draw the line. The police, ambulance service, teachers, street cleaners, doctors and nurses are all funded by the tax payer (well in this country anyway), so, as a tax payer, should I have the right to say how every single one of those people conducts their personal life?
In fact let's take it one step further, I have a bank account, therefore, as a customer of said bank I effectively pay the wages of the bank employees, therefore, should I have a say in what they do in their personal lives as well? Yes there is difference between someone who is a higher ranking politician and who effectively spends a lot of his time in the public eye and a mere bank employee, but the principle is the same no?
Principal is the same, yes, but I think higher ranking people have more responsibility by mere virtue of being more easily judged by the public. And, yes, if your bank gives you the highest return on your money you probably could not care less what the bank employees were up to during their work hours or otherwise but if the bank president cheated on his wife and it got all over the news he'd probably be fired.
I do agree with you actually that it shouldn't matter so much but I think once you're exposed like that it tarnishes the imageof the bank/company. The newspaper really should not have printed a story like this but sadly this is, apparently, what people want to read.
cheers
-B
ah but then you need to look at why the newspapers publish these stories, do they publish them because they feel it is in the public interest? because they feel that the public ought to know what their politicians are up to? or do they publish these stories because, for some unknown reason, people love to read about scandal and sex and that these kinds of stories sell papers. If suddenly the news of the world ran a free eddition, would they publish the story in the free one? or in the one that people had to pay for?
I bet you it's because the newspaper feels it is going to sell. I think people, fudnemantally, like to read these stories because it makes them feel better about themselves, about their lives, knwoing the rich, famous and powerful make mistakes too, forgiveable or not and you must remember, even if a newspaper is free to the subscriber the money financing it comes from advertizements and those who advertize like to see stories that will ensure the market share of the newspaper to get to the largest possible reader group.
At least that's what I think. Money talks.
Cheers
-B
but you've hit the nail on the head, money does talk, and how much money is paid out for stories that are blatantly untrue.
Two years ago there was a story about a young girl who had apparently been gang raped by a group of newcastle united players. The young girl had been staying in the same hotel as the players when the incident occurred, instead of going to the police to report the incident, she went to Max Clifford, a well-known agent, money certainly does talk, and sadly that also means that a lot of people will make things up to get it.
John Prescott's secretary apparently kept a very detailed diary of everything that happened between them, now tell me that wasn't a set-up
It is sad and you'd expect a newspaper to have at least some kind of varification standard before publishing such a story. Because even if proven innocent in court those stories will stick, they always do, may be because the public prefers it that way.
I guess to protect yourself you got to put up a camera in the office and get a male secretary, if you are a guy who wants to be in politics.
The media does things first and foremost to make money. I personally believe that public interest etc is number 2 on the list.
b, that idea only works if you don't have a liking for men.
i think that the newspapers will do anything to get a story that cells, it's what they do, they are run by huge companies that have shair holders to answer to.
while i don't believe her story was worth as much as the paper payed for it, i do believe that newspapers have a right to print whatever they want. If we started tampering with the press then we may as well kiss democracy goodbye.
I think people are generally fascenated by the lives of people in the public foreground, simply because they can only dream of being as interesting, admired or disliked or gosipped about.
it gives people, for some strange reason, a sence that they are part of something, this is why so many community organisations end up with some real nutters on their management committees.
The media over here is having a cow because they believe they should have some sort of am unity from the courts. I think they should be free game. if they write something about you that isn't true or slanderous we should be able to sue them and if there hald in to court they should be treated as any other person would be. I guess the other side of that is to start a blogg or paper to start investigating all the media persons, news ankers, reporters, etc and start airing all there dirty laundry and see how they like it!
lol...that's a good idea, only i bet you'd be the one who'd pay through the nose if someone didn't like it.
Affairs involving politicians should only be revealed to the public if the politicians have spent tax-payers money on the affair, if the affair has had an impact on their political decisions, and if the affair included the use of buildings which are intended for political activity. Otherwise, there's no need for the public to know.
ww, if he was messing around with his secretary at the office obviously public buildings were used, he probably did it whilst getting paid out of tax payers money, so two out of the 3 criteria you mentioned are met in this case.
yes but that's just it, *if* he used public building, the secretary claims that they had sex in his office, he categorically denies this fact. so its her word against his and no-one is likely to prove one way or the other.
Is there a blue dress? lol.
This question should be asked concerning many things. In my opinion, it is not in the public's interest, but some people just love to read these things and gossip about it. Let them just do it. We don't have to read it.
but why. I agree that there are people who love to read and gossip about the private lives of peple who are in the public eye, but tor the most part, that's what it is, private! Does that then mean that if you become a celebrity of any kind, you should be prepared to have your private life become public property?
Many celebrities say that they don't have any more private life. It is sad, and I don't like it, but there will always be people like that who like to gossip and know all about people's private lives. probably they are bored.
but just because there are people out there that like to gossip doesn't make it right though?
I would have two reactions to such material. My first one would be: "Who really really gives a damn about somebody in the public eye when Mr. Jones down the street can have the same kind of affair and nobody blinks." Once that little rant is over, my other reaction is: "Damn, guess they had a slow news day. But long as it's lurid and spectacular, it's guaranteed people will have a look and buy the paper." This is why I don't trust any news media, because it's all about generating sensation to sell advertising and not about trying to reflect and report what is really going on. Truth is boring, drama and bad news are stimulating. Go figure.
OK, I don't mean to be a board hog, but I want to add a few things after reading down the thread. Gossip may not be right, but it's quite popular, isn't it? I think people like to gossip about people in power because it's a quick way to feel superior to such folk. When a person gossips, they imply that they would just never ever do such horrible things, thus keeping their public persona squeaky-clean. Also, newspapers and the TV publish this kind of thing primarily to attract an audience which potentially sells advertising. Anything noble like public interest are not even secondary, but way at the bottom of the list. The TV news is really just another show that needs to attract an audience, it's not about reporting how things truly are in the world. They emphasize stories that are spectacular, such as crimes and assorted things to make you generally afraid or angry or sad or whatever, and the sole motivation of all that is to sell advertising and make money. The danger in reporting nothing but murders and thefts and disasters and terrorist attacks is that if people aren't careful, they'll believe the world is exactly like that, and I think, thanks to the news, a lot of peple do think things are much worse than they used to be, merely becasue we have quicker ways to report all the tragedy and terror out there. Good news just doesn't sell, even if people cared.
Claire, of course it's not right. I am not trying to defend the gossippers. I am just trying to say how it is.