Posted on 11/26/2016 9:57:56 AM PST by Salvation
The movie trailer below is for the upcoming move Jackie, about the life of Jacqueline Kennedy. The trailer sets before us the question of what should be exposed and what should remain private in the lives of public figures.
We came to learn, well after John F. Kennedy’s death, that he was quite the womanizer. Although most of the White House press corps was aware of this, it was not reported. Franklin Roosevelt’s palsy was also not publicized; in fact, photographs were taken at angles specifically designed to conceal it. There are many other examples of significant issues in the private lives of public figures that were not disclosed at the time.
Was the past tendency to filter out this sort of information right or wrong? Was it discretion or deception? Is there a limit to the people’s “right to know” or is this right absolute? What issues in the moral lives of our leaders should and should not be disclosed? How public or private should their medical records be?
The trailer depicts a (likely fictional) conversation between Jacqueline Kennedy and a reporter shortly after the death of President Kennedy. Mrs. Kennedy remarks, “People like to believe in fairy tales.” The reporter comments, “People need their history. They need to know that real men actually lived here.” Mrs. Kennedy responds, “I’ve grown accustomed to a great divide between what people believe and what I know to be real.”
The trailer (and I suppose the film) places before us this difficult question: What should and should not be revealed about the lives of public figures?
As a Catholic priest, I observe a great deal of discretion. Many people come to me, not only in confession but also in counseling, and tell me things that I have no business repeating to others. To the degree I am able, I strive to forget what happens in such settings. Discretion and confidentially are critical to counseling, and absolute secrecy is required regarding the Sacrament of Confession. I am comfortable with these boundaries.
Many, however, believe discretion to be a thinly veiled form of hypocrisy. The current thinking seems to be that the public’s right to know is all but absolute. There is a demand for medical records, school records, and other private matters to be disclosed. It is considered respectable journalism to interview people who may have had bad or sinful interactions with public figures, even going back decades. Tell-all books are treated as appropriate reading material, often becoming bestsellers.
I’m not so sure that all of this is helpful. In fact, the public disclosure of highly personal information by the public figures themselves strikes me as a form of immodesty. It is also a strange way to get attention. Prying into the lives of public figures seems to be an example of sinful curiosity at the very least. Reputations are important. Harming someone’s reputation ought not to be done except for a very serious reason. None of us has a spotless record and most of us have done things that we would not want revealed to any but God.
How much is too much? How far is too far? What knowledge does a person (a voter, for example) really need in order to make a proper evaluation? I don’t have a precise answer, but count me among those who find our current norms too intrusive, harsh, and indiscreet.
Is there a drawback to my view? I’m sure that there are many. The discretion exercised in the past is now seen as a reason to be cynical about historical public figures. There may also seem to be varying standards. Why are the private lives of some public figures disclosed while others seemingly get off scot-free?
Despite this, I remain dubious about the value of so much private information being made public; I prefer greater discretion. It may be that many or even most public figures have some less-than-desirable things in their past, even in their present. But that is even more reason to pray for them. Nothing is hidden from God, but do I need to know the details? Often, I do not.
What do you think?
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Discretion with almost no resulting collateral damage = Diplomacy + Damage Control.
Was the past tendency to filter out this sort of information right or wrong? Was it discretion or deception? Is there a limit to the people’s “right to know” or is this right absolute?
*************
Their premise is that it is universal... when every example shown is benefiting Democrats... The answer is OF COURSE it is deception... I wouldn’t care if it wasn’t used to advance the socialist agenda.
II Samuel 12:12
Seems God is not a big fan of "discretion" when it comes to political figures.
He seems to hold them to a higher standard because of the power they are given.
Discresion can be useful.
It is not when it is used as a tool of deception and power politics. When only the faults of the opposition are exposed, it becomes an evil.
PRAISE GOD FROM WHOM ALL BLESSINGS FLOW. PRAISE HIM ALL PEOPLES HERE BELOW, PRAISE HIM ABOVE THE HEAVENLY HOSTS, PRAISE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST, AMEN.
None of us has a spotless record and most of us have done things that we would not want revealed to any but God.
AMEN. AMEN.
I think we were a more decent society when we were more discreet.
Excellent point.
I have absolutely no need to see Trump’s tax returns. I don’t particularly need to see Hitlery’s, either. I already know she’s a criminal and there is ample evidence elsewhere.
But I DO want to see financial records on the Clinton Crime Foundation which is supposedly a charity. I want to know where ill-gotten gains come from. I want to know who is paying to play. I want to know how much Hitlery is charging for selling out the American public. I want to see the correlations between donations and favorable actions by the SoS to the donor.
Exactly.
This is what prevents a lot of truly decent, yet imperfect, people from running for office.
Praise God, from Whom electrons flow!
Praise Him, the source of all we know!
Whose order’s in the stellar host!
For in machines, He is the Ghost!
A Catholic priest is not the same thing as a newspaper reporter. His job is to keep confession private; a report’s job is to report the news.
Private lives may be kept private if they have no bearing on public life. But JFK’s private live certain DID effect his politics. He was an idiot and a scum, yet the news media had nothing to say but “Camelot, Camelot, Camelot.”
He was unfit to be President; but who knew it?
I asked an inmate, that I was working with at Kansas State Pen who I knew to be paroling out What he had learned from doing 5 years in max custody? He said “Boss I learned 1 thing, Don’t leave no witnesses.!!!”
There’s an old saying “Discretion is the better part of Valor”
I think however it only applies among those that hold a Moral compass.
Herman Cain, Robert Bork, MIT Romney all had minor transgressions held up as character flaws that torpedoed careers. Things that should never been allowed to be brought into the news, as they were inconsiquential and so far in the past that the individuals learned and became better men. However the icidents were show boated by the biased media and they were made to be irideemable and shameful.
Good point about the morality.
“Discretion is the better part of valor,” is one of those aphorisms that means ... something.
It could mean that, if your valor is going to be worth anything, you need to keep your plans secret up front.
It could mean that, after your valor is successful, it should speak for itself, allowing you to stand back from self-promotion.
Or it could mean other things.
In my mind it means;
“What do you own”
“What do you know to be true”
Discretion and forgiveness run a fine line between walking away or beating the crap out of someone.
Those points call for a definition of both "discretion" and "valor" that I'm not picking up directly from the context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.