Do “Celebrities” Sacrifice Their Right To Privacy?
The battle over your mental health or your personal brand
What does this collection of people have in common?
- Naomi Osaka
- Britney Spears
- The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (aka Harry and Meghan)
They are all “celebrities” either from their talent, a little notoriety, or by birth and inherited status. Whether as a tennis player, a singer, and performer, or as members of the British Royal Family, they are very much in the public eye.
They also have something else in common. They are all very wealthy.
- Naomi Osaka — estimated net worth of $25m
- Britney Spears — estimated net worth of $60m
- Harry and Meghan — estimated net worth of $10m
These figures vary according to different sources but provide a context of a lifestyle that most of us will never get near.
There is one last element that brings an unusual connection — the public sharing of mental health and personal challenges.
For Naomi Osaka, it was her high-profile withdrawal from the French Open earlier this year after refusing to attend press conferences because of the strain on her mental health and a wish to be out of the public eye for a bit.
Britney Spears’s ongoing battle with a conservatorship order put in place 13 years ago over concerns about her mental health is making the news now.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex hit the headlines in March following a candid interview with Oprah Winfrey, touching on issues including racism and struggles with mental health.
I have my views on the motives behind these occurrences, but that is not the purpose of this article. Instead, I want you to consider this simple question.
If you are in the public eye, have been courting publicity, and where your celebrity has made your career and fortune, are you entitled to claim privacy the moment things get tough?
It comes with the territory
In Britain, the infamous “phone-hacking” scandal led to the public Leveson Inquiry between 2011–12 looking at the approaches and ethics of an aggressive media, particularly tabloid publications seeking their next headline or exposé.
The findings of this inquiry recommended the establishment of a new independent organization to replace the Press Complaints Commission. The David Cameron Conservative-led government of the time, which initiated the Leveson Inquiry, did not implement these recommendations.
I will let you draw your own conclusions why tighter regulations of the tabloid press, owned by press barons who contribute major support to political parties, did not take place.
What the Leveson Inquiry did though was to shine a light on the narrow line between the right to privacy, public interest and that it “comes with the territory” if you’re in the public eye.
As author J.K. Rowling put it, when providing evidence to the inquiry:
“This doesn’t apply to the whole of the press but the attitude seems to be utterly cavalier, indifference, what does it matter, you’re famous, you’re asking for it.”
Opting out of the spotlight that brought you fame
When tennis player Naomi Osaka informed the assembled press at the 2021 French Open tournament, she wouldn’t take part in interviews, the organizers threatened her with potential expulsion. For someone declaring previous bouts of depression and a desire to protect her mental health, the organizer’s response was not supportive.
On sports radio shows I heard a mix of people expressing views that if you get paid that much money then you just have to put up with it and talk to the media. This is the same nonsense logic that it’s OK to abuse Premier League footballers because they earn exorbitant salaries. You can argue whether their wages are ethically right for what they do all day long. But to suggest because someone earns more than you and is “famous”, somehow the same rules of decency or privacy don’t apply is both ethically questionable and potentially illegal under The Human Rights Convention.
With Britney Spears, since breaking onto the music scene as a teenager, much of her life, successes, breakdowns, and mental health issues, resulting in her conservatorship order, are always in the spotlight of public scrutiny.
You and I may not have her wealth, celebrity, or notoriety, but would you want the painful elements of your life broadcast in such a way? Does she deserve it now?
But they brought it on themselves
There is another dimension that asks a separate question on privacy, public interest, and the oft-cited “impact on my mental health” question.
Whether it’s Naomi Osaka, Britney Spears, Harry, and Meghan, or anyone else in the public eye, the chances are they will have an agent or publicist. Is that wrong? Of course not. They have as much right to have support for their business interests as you or I.
But let’s remind ourselves what the role of the publicist or agent is.
Agents and publicists are tasked with a similar mission: to get their clients noticed. The difference between the two is that publicists work to get their clients exposure in the media, and agents, on the other hand, are tasked with getting their clients in front of decision-makers to get them jobs.
The key phrase here is: “to get their clients noticed.”
If you are “noticed” then there’s a reasonable chance, as stated earlier, it’s because of talent, notoriety, or some other assumed status. There is a conscious decision to “put yourself out there” and to be noticed in one form or another.
This is at the heart of the dilemma. Can you then turn around when the attention you are now receiving isn’t what you want? Isn’t there a need to just accept it “comes with the territory”? You have your multi-million-pound sponsorship deals which put you on every advertising hoarding in a major city, or every TV and mobile screen across the world from an interview you chose to give. Now you’re telling me you don’t want to be noticed?
Is there a right and a wrong answer?
You may have noticed I did not offer a view, I just asked the question to let you consider where you stand along this very blurred line.
Ask yourself, how often do you give in to the lure of clickbait and feed the beast that fuels aggressive journalistic practices which lead to invasions of privacy?
Have you tuned into “revelation porn” such as Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah and leave thinking these are narcissistic, privileged people exploiting their position or victims of prejudice within their own family that’s harming their mental health?
Do you pore over every detail of a salacious court case featuring a fallen pop princess and envy her wealth or pity or situation?
These are not simple questions, and I struggle over whether I think celebrities are being exploited when they struggle in the same way “ordinary” people do, or whether we are being exploited by giving them yet more air time. I err towards the former.
But I come back to one simple question. If I was in their shoes, what would I do? Would I honour my sponsorship commitments to appear in front of the press with my branded baseball cap or personal brand to protect, or would I put my mental health first?
I hope I would be as brave as Naomi Osaka was. That’s where I stand. How about you?
If you enjoyed my article, here are a few more from me that hopefully catch your interest!
