The ethics of “outing”
Malcolm Forbes was a famous billionaire. While alive he never admitted to being a homosexual. To the press the topic of homosexuality is usually ignored. But after the death of Forbes the question of why that is arose.
“Outing” is a term use to explain the process of pushing someone to admit their homosexuality. Conservatives believe that ones sexual orientation should be kept out of the press. And up until last year the press had adhered to this belief.
Some now argue that once you have agreed to enter the life of the rich and famous you loss that right to privacy. This is a complete turn around from the previous 60s philosophy that celebrities do no evil, and if so the press knows not to report it.
This article is told by a reported who was assigned to “out” Forbes after his death. With this assignment he faced an ethical issue. Is it right for reporters to reveal the sexual orientation of a celebrity, without permission?
Rawls veil of ignorance is a model one can use to decide what the proper action is to this ethical issue. He believes that the view of the weaker party must be included in the decision, and in most cases get even more consideration. Rawl would suggest that the reporter put himself into the shoes of Forbes. Only thinking of how Forbes would feel the reporter can grab an idea of how to ethically handle the situation. This exercise helps gain an unbiased conclusion. But one must not hide behind this veil. Here must be room for ethical discussions.
The liberty that journalist possess is also taken into account. Reporters have a duty to report the news. But they also must consider others. And even though Forbes is now deceased, he is still a victim. Any article published about h...
... middle of paper ...
...eds to know. A good journalist can tell the difference between the right to know, the need to know, and the want to know. The only one of those relevant is the want to know. The public would want to know this type of story, but only to use as a piece of gossip. And it is unethical to gossip in a negative way over a deceased man. The public does not have a right to know the sexual orientation of a celebrity. Yes, celebrities do submit themselves to the limelight. But there must eventually be a line this is not crossed. And lastly the public does not need to know this type of information. Knowing a famous man/or woman’s sexual orientation is not going to protect the public. The only news the public needs to know is that news that personal affects their lives. And that is why reporting on Forbes sexuality is unethical. The media is not meant to be a source of gossip.
In 1950, President Harry S. Truman implemented discharge policies for homosexual service members in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This would allow military leaders to discharge any service member who was thought to be homosexual. In 1992, during President Bill Clinton’s campaign, he promises to lift that ban. Not being able to do just that, President Clinton issued a directive referred to as ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’. This stated that no service member should be asked about their sexual orientation. Mackubin Thomas Owens wrote the article “Gay Men and Women in the Military Disrupt Unit Cohesion” in 2009 right after President Clinton was again calling for the end of forcing homosexuals to live in secret. In his article he states that homosexuals living openly in the military will take away from military effectiveness and put the other service member’s lives in danger. Throughout most of the article he uses other resources, polls and opinions on the matter verses clearly stating his own. Most of the resources he uses are military connected or
They mention the transition of “the closet,” as being a place in which people could not see you, to becoming a metaphor over the last two decades of the twentieth century used for queers who face a lack of sexual identity. Shneer and Aviv bring together two conflicting ideas of the American view of queerness: the ideas of the past, and the present. They state as queerness became more visible, people finally had the choice of living multiple lives, or integrating one’s lives and spaces (Shneer and Aviv 2006: 245). They highlight another change in the past twenty years as the clash between being queer and studying queerness (Shneer and Aviv 2006: 246-7). They argue that the active and visible contests over power among American queers show that queers now occupy an important place in our culture. They expand on the fact that queerness, real, and performed, is everywhere (Shneer and Aviv 2006: 248). This source shows the transformation in American culture of the acceptance of queerness. It makes an extremely critical resource by providing evidence of the changes in culture throughout the last two decades. Having the information that queerness is becoming more accepted in culture links to a higher percentage of LGBTQ youths becoming comfortable with their sexual identity. However, compared to the other sources, this
The movie ‘Philadelphia’ explores prejudice against having AIDS [also being homosexual]. In the film, Andrew Beckett (played by Tom Hanks) is a lawyer with a huge opportunity as a lawyer in front of him. When he finds out he had AIDS he chose not to tell his firm mentor about either his disease or his sexual orientation. Andrew is fired for, as his firm members claim, ‘incompetence’ however we can see it is more. Andrew was fired because he had AIDS and was assumed gay (at this time AIDS was know the ‘gay disease’). The movie shows Andrews struggle to be treated equally.
Author Steven Seidman writes that “it is the power of the closet to shape the core of an individual's life that has made homosexuality into a significant personal, social, and political drama in twentieth-century America “(38). Those that are homosexual tends to tell lies and play deceitful silly games just to appease family, coworkers and a few dear old friends. They feed into the prejudices and fears about homosexuality. In Angels in America, many of the characters are homosexual, and the truth about their sexual preferences comes out. Kushner shows us the difficult struggle that often precedes a gay person’s acceptance of her or his identity, and the ways in which one’s ability to enact this identity is dependent on the acceptance of others.
Marshall P. David (1997). Celebrity Power; Fame in Contemporary Culture. May 16, 2010. Electronically retrieved from
When considering the issue of celebrities receiving unfair treatment by making their punishment worse than a regular persons is totally un orthodox so it is essential to know that their regular too. Also all people don’t know what rules they are violating or what rules they need to know so they won’t violate them. All people aren’t guilty neither are they all innocent but they should suffer equal consequences.
The adverse subjects of child pornography and sex tapes have consistently been a controversy in the world. Today, there constantly seems to be a new sex scandal or pornography crime occurring. Sex tapes of celebrities are regularly circulating and they appear to be a popular topic to discuss. This was true when singer, R. Kelly, allegedly participated in a sex tape with a young girl. Kelly went to court on an account of child pornography instead of rape or sexual abuse.
...uld be justifiable to emphasize that a good number of them find it sickening to miss the limelight. . Nonetheless, it goes without mentioning that celebrities get exploited because some gossip stories explore the things that would otherwise be considered to be private.
Over the last few decades celebrity and fame has changed dramatically, from Alexander the Great to Kim Kardashian. Talent and achievements no longer play a huge role when it comes to our celebrities. “Much modern celebrity seems the result of careful promotion or great good looks or something besides talent and achievement” (Epstein2) with that being said celebrity-creation has blossomed into an industry of its own. Keeping up with all the gossips from breaking up to hooking up, law suits and drama many might come to an agreement that celebrity culture is starting to be the great new art form in our new generation and that it ...
In addition, if someone was fallowing you, taking pictures and bullying you every day single day, you would instantly report them to the police and they would without a doubt get the stalkers arrested, and they would get a restraining order. But if a celebrity calls the cops saying that there is someone following them and harassing them, no one is willing to protect them, because they are not able to stop the paparazzi for good. It 's like all celebrities are being punished for being rich and successful. Nobody deserves
We are part of a generation that is obsessed with celebrity culture. Celebrities are distinctive. Media and consumers alike invented them to be a different race of super beings: flawless, divine and above all the real moral world. In a 1995 New York Times article “In contrast, 9 out of 10 of those polled could think of something
In previous years, the issue with the paparazzi and media has grown. With the advances in technology, it makes taking and posting photos of celebrities or public figures much easier. The public appears greedy and feels privy to their private lives. Celebrities, or any public figure, have very limited privacy due to the paparazzi and media. The paparazzi and media are also affecting celebrities’ children. Currently, laws are being put in effect to stop this.
Much of today’s society seems obsessed on what actors/actress, athletes, and music artist are wearing, eating, who they are marrying, dating, where they are vacationing, what affairs they are having or have had, and how they live their everyday lives. What’s so interesting about this obsession is as a society we are implacable and often place celebrities on a pedestal, only to destroy them when they are illusive or promiscuous. Media outlets are swift to report when celebrities are in trouble but quickly forget all their accomplishments. It’s as if we want them to be perfect but once they are associated with a scandal we embark on destroying their reputation and character. Should society hold celebrities to higher standards just because they are paid millions for endorsements and a craft they worked hard to perfect? Do we as a society have the right to castigate celebrities when they misbehave? Do celebrities have the right to become livid when they are focused on for their immoral behavior? Do they love the media attention only when it benefits them? Before we can answer the above questions, would we, furthermore, can we live our life as a celebrity if given the opportunity?
According to Steven Knowlton, author of Moral Reasoning for Journalists, "Celebrities of all sorts-musicians, athletes, entertainers, and others-make their living from the public and the public therefore in a sense employs them, just as it employs governors and presidents..."(54). Most journalists figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their pr...
Should celebrities have their right to privacy? Before newspapers, television, and the internet, ordinary people were not exposed to endless stories about celebrities. Today however, we are bombarded with information about who is dating whom, where they eat, and what they wear from magazines such as People, Entertainment Weekly, and Star. Also, most ordinary people respect the rights of others to a private life. However, some people are just obsessed to get information out of celebrities. They want to know everything about them and have a desire for more information. Celebrities should have their right to privacy due to historical/practical rights, their invasion of privacy with paparazzi, and their childrens’ rights to privacy. They are ordinary people just with a famous role in life.