Dear Editor,
In September 2016, a Gallup poll revealed nearly 50% of Americans neither trust nor hold confidence in the men and women involved in politics who either hold office or are running for office.
With more and more Americans relying on social media for political news and information since the outcomes of the 2020 election, we’ve become hyper-sensitized to the spread of mis/disinformation by both political parties and media websites. Now the public feels the more we can access what politicians say and/or do, the more likely we can keep them honest.
Transparency, which is a quality of being easily seen through, in a business context refers to being open and honest. Increasingly, the nature of social media has become such that even actions intended to be private may be brought into the public’s awareness. Seemingly, requisite transparency - the public’s right to know now challenges an individual’s right to privacy.
The right to privacy, legally defined as the right to be free from unwarranted publicity, particularly in matters of a personal nature, entails freedom from interference or intrusion. That being said, the question arises: Was Catherine, Princess of Wales, obligated to be immediately transparent, or was she entitled to the right of privacy?
In January, Kensington Palace released a statement saying Catherine was doing well after a planned abdominal surgery and added that her illness was not cancer-related. Several weeks of speculation spread on social media about her state of health and whereabouts as she remained out of public view. Then on March 22, Kate, the name by which she is known in the public sphere, spoke to the world.
Seen sitting on a bench on the grounds of Windsor Castle, Kate revealed that “tests after the operation found cancer had been present...,” her “medical team advised a course of preventative chemotherapy...,” and that she is “now in the early stages of that treatment.”
Is there a lesson to be gleaned from this situation?
For one thing, social media often leads us down a path akin to that of Tom from the 11th-century legend, who peered at Lady Godiva during her naked ride, as we strive to peer into the lives of others without considering the consequences. The case of Kate illustrates how our fervent pursuit of transparency can transform into a cautionary tale where misinformation comes into conflict with the fundamental right to privacy.
As Kate revealed, “This of course came as a huge shock, and William and I have been doing everything we can to process and manage this privately for the sake of our young family.”
Obviously, Kate was alluding to the balancing act of parenthood that requires guarding the innocence of her three children until they develop some resilience.
Contrary to suggestions that Kate was intentionally manipulating the underlying truth about her health, the fact remains that the diagnosis was revealed to her after surgery had occurred, and she understandably needed time to confront this new reality. To Kate, I say, nobody has any right to your life story but you.
Kate’s message on that Friday concluded with these moving remarks, “For everyone facing this disease, in whatever form, please do not lose faith or hope. You are not alone.” Given what is Kate’s new normal, it has understandably taken a bit of time to arrive at a place wherein she can now assure us that both she and our relationship with her are getting stronger.
In doing so, the princess has exemplified the idiom “a stiff upper lip,” characterizing the British attitude of remaining resolute in the face of adversity. Nevertheless, considering the media’s insatiable appetite for gossip, I can’t help but wonder how long respect for one’s request for privacy will be upheld before the contrition wears off and salacious gossip rears its ugly head again.
Peter Wibell, Rutledge