When you can't see the Woods for the Terrys

I am fed up of people talking about bringing down the 'rich and powerful'. There is a thinly veiled jealousy inherent in the knee-jerk reactions of those members of the public who say things like "Such and such a footballer gets paid so much, their private lives are public concern", or "I pay for the tickets, so I pay his wages". In today's world, basically everybody pays everybody else's wages - the ideology of 'the customer is always right' does have a natural limit which is frequently passed over. I can't walk into a Sainsbury's and shout abuse at a checkout worker just because I pay their wages. So why do people feel like they in some way have some claim or ownership of John Terry or Tiger Woods or whoever?

That someone gets paid a lot or has a lot of money doesn't make them a bad person. Bill Gates has done more for charity, humanitarianism and the general cause of philanthropy than entire EU countries. Obviously, one can argue that he could always stand to give more (the tale of the rich man comes to mind), but that is, at the least to belittle his achievements (in both the relative and the absolute). Furthermore, while it is clear that footballers' or golfers' salaries are grossly disproportionate to more obviously necessary jobs like doctors, policemen etc., the idea that because someone is well paid that they have no right to privacy is absurd, even when some of that money comes from sponsorship and a public image. There are inevitably people who will argue that you can't have it both ways - if you use the press to promote the good you do and to up your standing, you can't expect them not to publicise in turn when things are going wrong.

But imagine, for a moment, if we held each other to similar standards in day to day life. Do we expect normally happy couples to broadcast their marital problems at dinner parties? Should the newly fired talk with equal enthusiasm about their redundancy as they did about the joys of their job? No, and such an implication is absurd. So why do we expect it from so-called celebrities? Most footballers do not foster this ridiculous notion that famous people should automatically be role models, though they may sometimes take advantage of it. So where exactly do we draw the line in financial terms? How much do you have to be paid before you lose your right to privacy?

It is clearly not just a financial consideration. Up until the recession, little attention was paid to bankers and business executives on exorbitant salaries and bonuses. Perhaps it is because they don't get a lot of TV time, whereas the likes of John Terry, Tiger Woods and Vernon Kay obviously gain bargaining power within the market from their increased exposure. But Terry is a footballer. Woods is a golfer. Kay a presenter. To answer the earlier point about the press reporting the bad along with the good, no one is saying the press can't criticise as well as praise (and simply report). But the only thing that's relevant is if Terry doesn't perform on the pitch, Woods on the course, Kay on his shows. As Charlie Brooker rightly pointed out earlier this week, the only people they owe an apology to are those affected by what they did, namely their families and friends.

One of the frequent subjects of ethical and moral discussion is why we as humans have such an obsession with idea of equality and levelling. Communism, in a Marxist sense, is wrongly described as prioritising equality, or at least a Western idea of equality, when, in fact, it is barely a concern. Without problems of ownership or possessions, there is a communal store of anything that might be needed which is open to all. You can take as much or as little as you want or need from the store, the perfect formulation of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". But the issue that historically arises from actual Marxist communes and from general observation of human nature is this idea of keeping up with Joneses. It seems a natural, innate feature that we measure ourselves in comparison to others, and from such measurements, ideas of proportion and fairness arise. But such ideas are not logically or socially necessary - if all my needs are met and all my desires fulfilled, why should I care about how my neighbour is doing?

There are ongoing debates about whether privacy is a right or a privilege, with serious points to be made for both sides. But whichever it is, just as important is the question of who decides, and how, who gets it. The media's justification for their behaviour with regards to Terry and Woods is that they are reporting what people want to hear. If it's true, then the public at large obviously do not deserve to permit or withhold privacy, for reasons of hypocrisy and poor judgement. If it is not true, then the media is simply pandering to a lucrative minority. It is important here to distinguish between something which the public finds interesting and something which is genuinely in the public interest. I would assert that it is nigh on impossible to make a case that the adultery sagas discussed satisfy the latter. Either way, the point stands - just because, through either their own volition or passively, one part of someone's life is within the realm of the media, we cannot conclude that the whole of their life should be.