Charlie Brooker, a columnist for the Guardian, writes that "We shouldn't have to feel paranoid about snoops listening in to everything we say."
In other words, he asserts that honest, open, and natural conversations are now in danger thanks to today's extensive use of technology.
He first references Andy Coulson, who landed headlines after hacking the phones of celebrities like Sienna Miller and Steeve Coogan. Brooker then moves on to the incident between two sports commentators Andy Gray and Richard Keys that led both of them to lose their jobs. While off-air, they made sexist comments about a female linesman, claiming that females were incapable of understanding the rules of soccer. Unfortunately, their public conversation was recorded secretly on tape and released to the public.
Although Brooker does not condone their comments, he argues that it is a mistake Gray and Keys were fired for simply holding a private conversation, lamenting that "We've entered an era in which private conversation is impossible." The two were smack talking others, but nothing they said was illegal, and everyone has said rude and objectional things in private.
Although many will disagree with Brooker for defending sexist comments, he does raise an important concern. Private conservation plays an important part of rhetoric. Democracy depends on open conversations and voicing beliefs because "in a democracy, people must call into question the opinion of others, must bring them into the light for examination and negotiation.
These days, people tend to be more afraid of holding private conversations because word can spread arround fast, but unfortuantely, restricting private conversations also restricts expression, creativity, and ultimately freedom.
I like the conflict you have brought up. On one hand, people should have the right to speak freely and without restraints as far as private conversations. However, we expect these same people to keep offensive or political incorrect comments to themselves. So where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and self-restraint? I think this is an interesting dilemma that cannot be solved in a court of law but it will take rather a shift in societal expectations.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting concern. While the things Gray and Keys said were certainly unkind, I'm not sure the content of a private conversation should be grounds for firing. If people are forced to always edit their private conversations, I think problems could arise. Everyone has a right to their opinion and never being able to express a belief that may be controversial or not socially acceptable inhibits expression, creativity, and freedom as you point out.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if part of the issue here (as with politicians who say stupid things) is that we do expect certain people we've put in the public light to have that nebulous quality: character. And ESPN's ethos is reflected in the people who represent it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it's true that the move seems to be toward policing every aspect of these people's lives, which is simply unfair.
Perhaps this is due to the judgmental/condemnatory attitude to which all Americans at least occasionally seem to fall prey. It wouldn't be such a big deal if our response to this was: Well, that was a stupid and unfair thing to say. Let's have a conversation with them about the attitudes behind these remarks. While it's unlikely they would significantly change their attitudes, it would be a step toward rehabilitation rather than just rejection and punishment. Bottom line, it strikes me as a more generous rhetorical position.
I really enjoyed your post this week. This is such a pressing and interesting issue that I think everyone needs to be aware about. I agree with Brooker on this issue. I think people should be allowed to hold private conversations in whatever way they want to hold them. What they choose to speak about is their opinion, whether it be right or wrong. If everyone spoke by the rules, discourse and rhetoric would be unimportant and our society would neither improve, nor go anywhere for that matter.
ReplyDelete