For decades, the journalistic norm had been that the private lives of public officials remained private unless that life impinged on public performance.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The only time the private parts of someone's life are relevant is when they're affecting public performance. And just because someone is a public person doesn't mean that any part of his or her private life is open to scrutiny. If someone is doing his or her job, you have to have enough empathy to understand that we all have personal problems.
My private life became public.
I have been fiercely private, in part because I could never understand how a journalist could be otherwise. I was also the mother of small children, and security concerns were paramount.
I can be a show-off at home. But publicly, I have always been a private person. It's not totally my bag to court the press.
I never thought my private life would be newsworthy.
I am for a clear distinction between public and private life. I believe private matters should be regulated in private and I have asked those close to me to respect this.
I have no private life, as I am constantly under police surveillance.
If we could have somehow stayed away from the public and the press, it might have been different, but every private issue seemed to be played out on the front page.
In the end, it is because the media are driven by the power and wealth of private individuals that they turn private lives into public spectacles. If every private life is now potentially public property, it is because private property has undermined public responsibility.
The line between private and public lives is a fertile one for me. I've lived quite a public life, and it's the reason I have used well-known people in my work. I'm interested in what's going on beneath the facades they present to the world, taking them to a place which is uncomfortable.
No opposing quotes found.