The Public Interest.

[Audley Strange]

So as I still becoming increasingly infuriated by the latest round of bollocks on the News Hacking scandal it got me wondering about claims of public Interest. It seems to me that there is a very real difference between "The Public Interest" and what the public is interested in and often the two are completely at odds with each other. As I was thinking about this it occurred to me that in the "The Public Interest" is essentially a political term, it's used in the same way politicians use "The people of Great Britain" when they really mean themselves and their party line. If this is so then surely "The Public Interest" is little more than propaganda and that papers who campaign in respect of such are actually promoting political propaganda, where as the aesthetically questionable chin wag rags invasive salacious celebrity gossip and almost homoerotic fixation on young men injured while playing games is actually the free press, reporting what people actually want to read about.

Which is a horrible fucking thought.

[klr]

In this context, "The public interest" = justification for whatever sort of muck-raking the papers got up to so as to sell copy to a certain subset of the population who are mostly interested in juicy gossip*.

*Juicy to them, not me. I couldn't give a flying lemur for 99.84% of the "public interest" stories that involved phone hacking and suchlike. They only interest me because they were illegal and/or distasteful in themselves.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, it's the public interest as in "what the public is interested in" rather than "what our political ideology tells us benefits the proles". One is gossip, the other propaganda, which leads me to wonder which is actually more detrimental to the actual public interest, if such a thing can even be quantified.

[klr]

I've learned to screen out or translate most political and PR jargon by now, so when I hear "the public interest" in any context, it usually gets ignored, or is just some white noise. The politician (if it is a politician speaking) will still usually get a hearing from me though. Unless they're talking nothing but vapid waffle, in which case the take-home message is that they're just trying to avoid saying something concrete/actually committing themselves to a course of action, etc. Sometimes it's what people are not saying is what's important.

[klr]

Damn, wrong thread ...

[Gallstones]

When in college I was required to take US History. One of our semester assignments was to go to the library and read colonial newspapers (on microfilm). My favorites were the scandal rags.

[Jonesboy]

So as I still becoming increasingly infuriated by the latest round of bollocks on the News Hacking scandal it got me wondering about claims of public Interest. It seems to me that there is a very real difference between "The Public Interest" and what the public is interested in and often the two are completely at odds with each other. As I was thinking about this it occurred to me that in the "The Public Interest" is essentially a political term, it's used in the same way politicians use "The people of Great Britain" when they really mean themselves and their party line. If this is so then surely "The Public Interest" is little more than propaganda and that papers who campaign in respect of such are actually promoting political propaganda, where as the aesthetically questionable chin wag rags invasive salacious celebrity gossip and almost homoerotic fixation on young men injured while playing games is actually the free press, reporting what people actually want to read about.

Which is a horrible fucking thought.

[Jonesboy]

Youre talking about homo's, public interest and some other twaddle? Is this atheism? What the fuck has this got to do with atheism thar boy?

If you want your arse scrathched come and see Audley STrange. Half-price offers on politics. Get you political, blah blah blah arse scratched here. Audrey Strange is the master of tougue titillation. God belss her Majesty.

[Jonesboy]

When in college I was required to take US History. One of our semester assignments was to go to the library and read colonial newspapers (on microfilm). My favorites were the scandal rags.

YOu are joking.

Does anyone see this as intersting?

[redunderthebed]

Whatever he is saying it makes a fuckload more sense than the shite you write on your blog jonesboy.

Anyway if you actually read the title of the forum it says serious discussion and philosophy we don't just talk about atheism or religion. Much like i'm sure your not a complete and utter wanker all the time.

[Audley Strange]

No need to engage him on my behalf red, it's just noise.

[Seth]

I think it's a legitimate claim that anything that has anything to do with politics or governance, including the character and reputation of elected officials, are matters of legitimate "public interest."

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I think it's a legitimate claim that anything that has anything to do with politics or governance, including the character and reputation of elected officials, are matters of legitimate "public interest."

What about the character and reputation of ordinary unimportant people who happen through no fault of their own to find the spotlight of media attention turning on them? Victims of crime and their families for example?

[Seth]

I think it's a legitimate claim that anything that has anything to do with politics or governance, including the character and reputation of elected officials, are matters of legitimate "public interest."

What about the character and reputation of ordinary unimportant people who happen through no fault of their own to find the spotlight of media attention turning on them? Victims of crime and their families for example?

Completely different. Private persons have a right to privacy that I would extend even to the press. But those who seek, or obtain public office are by necessity open to public scrutiny.

Interestingly, I was listening to "The Jefferson Hour" on NPR earlier, where the doofus playing Jefferson pontificated on this precise point. He said that while the public has the right to know things about a public official like his voting record or associations, that his private life, including things like "his affairs of the heart" should be off limits. He said that such things have no bearing on the individual's public service.

But this is patently not true. Whether or not a President, by way of example, is copulating with a female assistant in the Oval Office, in violation of his marriage vows, and then lies about it to the public is absolutely of public interest, because if he will cheat on and lie to his wife, and lie to the People, to their faces, and lie on the stand in court, then he cannot be trusted to properly wield the power he has been granted by the People. If he will lie to them about his sexual peccadillos to the public, he'll lie about anything, and one thing that cannot be tolerated in any government official is lying to the public, ever, under any circumstances.

Therefore, a candidate or elected official's private bedroom conduct is fully within the public interest if that conduct indicates a lack of moral character or self-control and honesty.

[Robert_S]

I think it's a legitimate claim that anything that has anything to do with politics or governance, including the character and reputation of elected officials, are matters of legitimate "public interest."

What about the character and reputation of ordinary unimportant people who happen through no fault of their own to find the spotlight of media attention turning on them? Victims of crime and their families for example?

Completely different. Private persons have a right to privacy that I would extend even to the press. But those who seek, or obtain public office are by necessity open to public scrutiny.

Interestingly, I was listening to "The Jefferson Hour" on NPR earlier, where the doofus playing Jefferson pontificated on this precise point. He said that while the public has the right to know things about a public official like his voting record or associations, that his private life, including things like "his affairs of the heart" should be off limits. He said that such things have no bearing on the individual's public service.

But this is patently not true. Whether or not a President, by way of example, is copulating with a female assistant in the Oval Office, in violation of his marriage vows, and then lies about it to the public is absolutely of public interest, because if he will cheat on and lie to his wife, and lie to the People, to their faces, and lie on the stand in court, then he cannot be trusted to properly wield the power he has been granted by the People. If he will lie to them about his sexual peccadillos to the public, he'll lie about anything, and one thing that cannot be tolerated in any government official is lying to the public, ever, under any circumstances.

Therefore, a candidate or elected official's private bedroom conduct is fully within the public interest if that conduct indicates a lack of moral character or self-control and honesty.

I do not know if Hillary Clinton actually gave a damn or felt hurt and betrayed, or if she even encouraged Bill to get some elsewhere so he'd leave her alone. A public that would poke it's head in that sort of business deserves lies at best.