Thursday, October 18, 2007
To what extent do politicians have a right to a private life?
The question is one which has been under much discussion in France in recent years, with the growing 'peopolisation' of politics here. During the presidential election campaign, as I pointed out in the round-table in May, there were hints that Sarkozy & Royal were both having 'marital' difficulties but very little specific was said openly, because of the French journalistic tradition of not transgressing the 'yellow line' (a law from 1970) which defines the right to a private life, and which journalists tend to abide by, because of the traditional influence of politicians over their jobs. The Elysée has just announced the official separation of Sarkozy & his wife Cécilia, and Royal announced her separation from Hollande just before the 2nd round of the legislative elections. In both cases, their private lives overlap considerably with their public lives, with considerable impact on French politics: arguably, the whole socialist campaign would have been different had R & H not been at loggerheads personally, and it was Cécilia who, with an office at the Elysée, negotiated single-handed the liberation of the Bulgarian nurses a few weeks ago, so the political connections are strong there too. Both S & R have used images of their private lives in the media to further their own personal campaigns. So whilst Mitterrand managed to maintain two families simultaneously (both at the cost of the state), and still carry on his third life as Casanova, without the press uttering more than the odd murmur, it looks as if with the new generation of politicians, things might be starting to change. But how does journalism define what is private and what is in the public interest? How to avoid either the excesses of the British tabloids, or the self-imposed (or fear-induced) censorship of the French media? Have any other countries managed to get the balance right, and if so, how have they done it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It is interesting that you note that the "images of their private lives" have been used "to further their own personal campaigns". It is also possible to suggest that not using images of the family life would also be used (issues of privacy, separation of work and home, separate lives not responsible for each other's responsibilities) for some issue or campaign. Some speculation of the leadership desires of Nick Clegg has commented on his reluctance, perhaps, to put his family in the spotlight. But to the question as to what extent politicians have a right to a private life, I like to think they should, but inevitably don't. That people are fallible should hardly be newsworthy. It is also perhaps not surprising that a person of high political office has a "high flyer" partner - with their own priorities and strengths. Is the question not about whether the politicians are entitled to a private life - but more a reflection of the private life we - as onlookers - expect them to have.
Some of you might note Mary Riddell's column on the same subject in last Sunday's Observer. For my part, I think that politicians should be entitled to a private domain. I do understand that 'public interest' considerations can apply in the case of elected officials, but I fear that journalists and spectators often confuse what is genuinely in 'the public interest' (ie, in the sense of questions pertaining to good governance and governing propriety) with what the public often happens to be interested in (salacious tittle-tattle about private lives). They are not the same thing, and I tire of media representatives justifying their work in this confused manner.
Post a Comment