So why is it okay to invade Bingle and Clarke’s privacy?
There’s a large photo of Lara Bingle and Michael Clarke on page nine of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph today. It also appears on the web site.
Clearly taken with a telephoto lens, it shows them on the balcony of their home. The caption admits as much, describing them “in their Bondi pad”.
I’m curious how the paper would hope to justify it if the couple complained to the Press Council that its Privacy Standards have been breached.
The relevant paragraph from the Standards seems to be this one:
“Public figures necessarily sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in the public interest. However, public figures do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must be related to their public duties or activities.”
I think everyone is entitled to privacy including celebrities, of course some take the view that the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about at all.
The real culprit in all this isn’t the photographers or even the papers they work for, it’s the public who pay good money for this rubbish.
My uneducated – but I would say spot on – guess, is that Bingle needs all the help she can get.
Clarke is doing ok in canary yellow, but she is just a WAG these days…
For this reason, as Wolfie said above, she needs all the publicity she can get and with her obvious relationship with the Tele: (“Model Lara Bingle, who will be taking the Sunday Telegraph’s Body and Soul H2=Health and Happiness test, at Bondi in Sydney”) a vehicle to boost her profile, I would say this is a blatantly transparent yet mutually promoting agreement in the name of selling each other (papers and career as a B lister).
It’s a bit sad they can’t even enjoy their balcony. And even sadder this is ‘news’. Bet they will move.
Yep, for sure! The saddest thing about this is that it is news. Why are so many of us celeb-obsessed??