It is vital for journalists to remember that they are responsible for informing the public in a certain fashion. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, a journalist's responsibility is "to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly,"" and, "respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy- (ASNE). So, do we consider it to be respectful if someone takes a picture of a celebrity when they ask them, or outright show them, that they do not wish to be photographed? Take Michael Jackson, for instance. We often see pictures and snapshots of him wearing a hat and bandana over his face. That obviously signifies that the man does not want his picture taken (and possibly signifies other things as well). Some would question why people do it. That is not respecting the rights, observing the decency, or being fair to an individual. .
What about the privacy rights of celebrities and public figures? Just because they are well known and often times wealthy, it is no sign that their constitutional rights to privacy are relinquished. With that taken into consideration, why is it that celebrities and public figures are constantly in the news, with stories based on their personal lives? Do celebrities and public figures even have a right to privacy? Yes! Sure, when someone becomes part of the public eye, they inherently give up some of those privacy rights. But often times, the actions of journalists, reporters, and paparazzi infringe on public figures' privacy causing distress, proliferating false information, creating fear of bodily harm, etc. And take the National Enquirer, for example. It is a magazine dedicated to prying into the personal lives of public figures--a tabloid. Lies, rumors, scandals, twisted, and skewed information are presented in the National Enquirer, and in many other tabloids, often without the subject even knowing it.