Political Communication blog

I don't know, I don't really buy into that. You should be able to have a reasonable amount of privacy in more places than the confines of your own home.

He was a senator from Colorado, so really only the people of Colorado should have extended access to him, as their elected official. If he were a president, then all Americans could have an expectation of some extra access to him, when working as our elected official.

However, this complete loss of a right to privacy seems extreme. Consider this: when you are on your own personal time, such as on a boat on the weekend, or out to see a movie with your friends, or drinking at the bar on a Thursday night watching the game with your buddies, do you feel that your employer has the right to eavesdrop on your conversations, take photos of you from across the room, or even hold it against you that you consumed say a six-pack? Maybe he thinks you're being reckless by going out drinking at a bar, and it causes him to let you go.

Would you so easily waive away your expectation of privacy in such a case? Or does it only apply when it's someone else?

Privacy issues are a really sticky situation, with no easy solutions especially in this day and age of tabloid media, paparazzi, and gotcha journalism. I'm not so comfortable with automatically disqualifying otherwise competent people for screwing up sometimes. Nobody is perfect.
 

I agree with Dan's take on the scenario in that no one wants their boss looking over their shoulder when they are on their own time.

The difference that I see in that scenario and the Gary Hart issue is that he told the media to follow him if they wanted. I think that up until that point Hart deserved to have his privacy, but when he told the media to follow him he gave up those rights. The choice to allow even propose that they follow him was his choice, no one made him do it.

So all in all I think he just made a dumb choice when he told the media it would be fine with him if they followed him around.
 

I agree with Abbi. If you know you are doing something wrong don't tell the media to try and catch you in the wrong. I mean I don't know if he was trying to play mind games or what, but being in his position he shouldn't have invited them into the only personal space he had left.
 

I agree with Abbi also. Hart practically welcomed in his lack of privacy by stating that the media could follow him around. It was an open invitation for them to dig up dirt on his life. If he had been smart about it then this story wouldn't have come out. (Not that I condone his behavior.) Because of this, I think he deserved what he got even though his privacy was taken from him.
 

I also agree that you shoud have a "reasonable" amount of privacy. But, I feel that whenever Gary Hart gave the press the invite "to follow him around, that his personal life was boring" it was almost like he was challenging the press. Of course the media was going to retaliate. I feel that it was a ridiculous decision on his part and that he has absolutely no right to complain about being caught.
 

Hart deserved what he got. You don’t challenge the media to find and expose secrets within your life while running for office, because that is exactly what they are going to do. I understand what Hart was trying to accomplish, but it backfired.

And in this day and age, does privacy even exist…..especially for a high profile position such as a senator or president?
 

I think that if you are a public official and you going to do something that you know that the people you represent won't like then you are looking for trouble. He seemed even more out of line when he challenged the media to follow him. As we discussed in class you need the media on your side to be able to win. I think he made several poor decisions while he was trying to run for president.
 

I agree with everyone who said he got what he deserved! The law says that public officials (as well as celebrities) don’t have the same rights as private citizens do (as far as things like this are concerned)... Gary Hart knew when he went into office that there would always be someone looking over his shoulder and keeping track of his "social" life as well as his professional life... this is a choice he made, same public officials adjusts their lifestyles so that it meets the image they want to put forward, and some don’t! Gary Hart did not... he deserved what he got! He challenged the media and lost!
 

Everyone is right about having a right to privacy-we're all human and we all need our space. Hart's slip up was telling the media to follow him around. You don't tease a dog with treats, he'll bite you. Also, being a public, elected official, no matter what state, gives the media the right to delve into your private life. That's the price all public officials pay-even if you're the mayor of Starkville. If it becomes a scandal, it's only a matter of time before the nation finds out and the show's over.
 

I agree that people should have privacy. I do not believe though that people should be denied the right to know what is going on in Washington especially when in gary harts case they are planning to run for president.