Where’s the Line? – 71 of 90

So, I’m a big fan of listening to podcasts. They get me through long drives, work, cleaning, pretty much anything that takes a long period of time that I want a distraction for.

One podcast I listen to is “The Adam Carolla Show” or whatever its calling itself these days — for better or worse, it has changed names and formats a few times in its 12-plus months. Adam Carolla, more well-known from his days on “The Man Show” or “Dancing With the Stars,” covers a lot of topics on his show, and he is rather opinionated while he does it.

One topic he has spoken on several times is the rights of paparazzi and tabloids to take photos of celebrities and use those photos to turn a profit. He thinks it’s inappropriate for people to invade your privacy and make money off your likeness without that person’s permission.

And I see his point. These institutions — the TMZs, the Perez Hiltons, the OK! Magazine — profit because they buy and publish pictures of the Hollywood elite and the scandals (and sometimes the mundane) of their lives.

But this made me start to think, where’s the line? Is it appropriate for People magazine to publish photos of Sandra Bullock and her new child or whatever it is the cast of “Jersey Shore” is or isn’t doing (I guess they’re on strike, although I’m not sure how you can quit working when you never really started).

For tabloids, you’re more likely to say no. But what about the New York Times. Can it publish information about the new “Twilight” film or Brangelina (I’m not saying they do all the time, but I’m pretty sure there’s been a story or two about them somewhere. And if I’m not 100 percent correct on the Times, replace it with the L.A. Times or whatever newspaper you read.)

One of the most successful issues in terms of readership of the Ball State Daily News in the spring was its “Lost” preview. We had a “successful day” because of a piece of entertainment. Is that fair? We didn’t pay the creators or actors of “Lost” to write that article.

I guess the point is that we exist in shades of grey. I don’t know if there will ever be clear rules on what is and isn’t appropriate. The famous quote from a Supreme Court justice about pornography was that, “I know it when I see it.” Maybe we just get a sense of when the line is crossed (not that we’re inclined to do much about it. The paparazzi seems to get away with whatever it does.)

It’s similar to paying for stories. Tabloids are well-known for paying for photos (most recently, Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were paid for the story of how they got back together).

And we demonize the tabloids for doing that. But when ABC News does it, it gets a pass because it’s ethical “most of the time.” Are some institutions above the rules because we like them more?

I don’t know if there’s ever going to be clear rules. I guess we should just be aware of what we should and should not be doing and hold all of the media, not just the ones we’ve delineated as good journalism and bad journalism, to those standards.