Issue_29_GRE_Writing

Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy.

With the rapid development of mass media, ordinary people have more chances to hear something about privacy of public figures, and there are still some people who are fond of gathering such things. After all, since public figures, especially politicians, usually take more responsibilities, what is actual privacy for common person is not the same with them. As a public figure, whether likes or not, he or she has to accept the fact that pursuing a public role means loss of certain privacy to some extent.

Firstly, mass media aiming to make profit play an essential role in the exposure to privacy of celebrity. Generally speaking, public figures are considered as representative and outstanding person in their corresponding domain, so common people are willing to know something about them and usually admire them, sometimes in order to get some information which can bring them to be successful as well, which is not unreasonable. With the help of developed mass media in contemporary society, people could achieve it without difficulty. Unfortunately, because most mass media is profit-oriented, they sometimes gather information of public figures in inappropriately ways, even privacies such as the time when public figure gets up, in order to attract more audiences to watch their programs. Though such action seems ridiculous and meaningless, but it does work. In this sense, mass media influent and almost mislead the concerns of people, which causes the overmuch exposure of public figures and sometimes violate their privacy, though that common people like to look into lives of celebrity is basically faultless.

Since public figures have great social influences, in this sense, making more public them is inevitable. For common people, such things like revenue, work of children, estate, living propensity and personal life are privacy without any question. But when it comes to public figures, situation is totally different. Take revenue for example, its real amount often reflects whether a politician is uncorrupted. Bigger rights mean heavier obligations, and clear person should not be afraid of such exposure. On the other hand, such "threat" of exposure is beneficial for public figures to remind themselves not to do something harmful to their figures. So it is realistic and inevitable that people who seek a public role will lose much or less privacy, which is not only a pain but stimulation as well.

Admittedly, not all privacy should be exposed, and society should refrain from becoming addicted to the private lives of public figures. Public figures surely have actual privacy as well, and interests on them should not deprive them from natural personal life. In fact, many actors are besieged by cameras and video records all the time even when they have a casual dinner with friends, which is unfair for sure. No matter how deeply a person like an actor, it is obviously unreasonable for him to pay too much attention to actor's privacy. Thus, society, especially mass media, should respect public figures' actual and possible privacy rights, rather than indulge in their private lives to much.

In sum, public figures are bound to loss some of their privacy. For the most parts, exposure of privacy helps society work, but excessive exposure is not beneficial to it. Society and mass media should have the awareness that interest is a good thing only with respect and in certain degree.