In the public interest: Public vs Private

There always seems to be a debate about the gray areas between what can be considered private and what can be deemed public. There is the notion that people, such as movie stars, popular singers and famous personalities have no choice but to have their lives considered public. In the discussion in class, I've realised that there is much more to this debate than just private vs public.

There has evolved a new means of 'measuring' the types of guidance one can receive when surfing the Internet.

· Authenticator: Help the audience figure out what to believe, what can they trust

· Sense-maker: Help the audience derive meaning from what is happening in the world

· Navigator: Help the audience find their way around a story, point them to the “good stuff”

· Forum-leader: Help the audience engage in a discussion in a knowledgeable way

(Rosenstiel, 2009)

AnUpon reading that piece of information, another area of interest emerged- corporate influences. Corporate influence over editorial content has left the public skeptical of the messages being reported upon, and just how much of the information they are receiving has been filtered through corporate firewalls. Governments have been know to censor information or not reveal under the guise of 'national security' but people, with the advancement of the internet, have done their research and found out possible scenarios that go against what has been said.

So So the qiestion remains, how much is too much? Is the media at fault for prying into the lives of people who don't want to have their lives publicised or are these people saying that to take action against the appropriate parties later on should a disagreement arise. In my opinion, there are boundaries and sitting on the fence on making some issues private while others are not is a form of baiting the media.