Secrets, lies and mobile phones

The President of Formula One, Max Moseley was, as we all know, videoed engaging in the sort of conduct which is the life-blood of tabloid newspapers. His predilection for sado-masochism with prostitutes put him and Formula One on the front page of ‘The News of the World' for all the wrong reasons. But the newspaper felt it had to appeal not to mere prurience, but to high morality in order to put him on the front page. And so it alleged that the ‘role-play' was based on a Nazi/Holocaust theme and that, accordingly, it was in the public interest to run the story in all its detail. Moseley sued, but not for defamation (where he would certainly have either lost or at least not been awarded any damages) but for invasion of privacy. He alleged that the Nazi allegations were untrue and that accordingly he was entitled to ‘respect for his private life' meaning that the paper had not been entitled to publish what it did. The judge found the Nazi allegations to be unfounded and so awarded substantial damages and costs to Moseley.  In an interview with the BBC the other day, Moseley complained that the revelations had caused severe embarrassment to his wife and children. He said, in effect, that that was all the newspaper's fault - what he did in his private life was up to him. He was entitled to keep his secret life secret, even from his wife.  Perhaps particularly from his wife. The general reaction on the web can be summed up in the words ‘what incredible arrogance!'. Miriam Margoyles, the film and stage actress, was the subject of Desert Island Discs a few weeks ago. Her choice of records was interesting, as was the wonderful choice of a luxury to take onto the island - a flush toilet. During the programme, however, she told us that 40 years ago she had revealed to her Jewish mother that she was a lesbian. Her mother had had a stroke a few days later and died shortly afterwards. Miriam Margoyles blamed this on the shock of her revelation and said how much she had regretted saying anything about it. She believed that such things did not need to be talked about where it might upset the hearer to know. She therefore disagreed with those running Stonewall who demand that all homosexuals 'come out'.  In their view, solidarity between homosexuals is vital in order to overcome the prejudice which certainly did exist 40 years ago and undoubtedly still exists, although to a lesser extent today.  Whilst I can see the point of what they are saying, the gentler view expressed by Miriam Margoyles seems to me to be quite justified. There are of course some arrogant people who pride themselves on saying precisely what they think at all times. Most of us though exercise our discretion over what we reveal to others, very often for good and, I would suggest, morally justifiable reasons.  Although ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness' is one of the commandments, and liars are to be consigned to the flames of Hell, little white lies have always been regarded as justifiable.  All babies are, of course, beautiful.  Really. But what do you do if you discover that your best friend's husband is having an affair?  Is it anything to do with you?  Most agony aunts seem to advise that you might perhaps say something to the errant husband, but that you should not say anything to the wife. So what is the difference if you are a journalist dealing with the peccadilloes of the rich and famous?  The standard thinking is that these things need to be revealed if it is ‘in the public interest'. The public is most certainly interested, fascinated even, when such things happen. But that does not mean that it is necessarily in the public's interest that they be revealed. In this country, however, it seems that it is enough that the deception has occurred in order to justify the suggestion that that person is not fit to govern us or to take decisions where integrity is necessary. If he has deceived his wife, then will he not deceive us?  Well, in the case of such deception by the man in the street, the answer is: probably not, actually.  Such behaviour is usually reckoned to be in a different category to the rest of what we do.  But the ruling classes and the rich and famous are not the man in the street.  And whenever a window is opened on their lives we seem to see a tendency amongst them to think that they can get away with anything; that, just like Max Moseley, they are exempt from the requirements of the morality normally expected to be observed by mere mortals. But if they do not feel constrained by the ordinary decencies of life then, as in many a civilisation before, that general state of immorality can cause major problems to the country as a whole. If they do not feel concern that a god is looking on and judging their actions, then it may be that the newspapers have to take on that role: investigating what they do and revealing all to a fascinated public. Although I hesitate to say so, perhaps the job of the newspapers is, after all, to bring the rich and famous down a peg or two.

 Home      Caro Diario     Philosophy     Who am I?      Links     Photos of Annecy