People who have "public" jobs must expect that their personal lives will be thrust into the limelight at some point. Whether this is right or wrong is not to be contested (at least without a bottle of wine and a chairman to oversee proceedings). We must just accept that it is a fact of life in this new borderless world we live in.
What I do think is interesting is the effect it seems to be having on higher moral ground. The fact that people think they have permission to persecute those that they, in their personal opinion, consider to have done something wrong.
This week we've seen a couple of cases of people taking advantage of their media nouce for personal gain.
1. Gordon Ramsey V Tracey Grimshaw
2. Woman's Day V Therese Rein
Now everyone has a different opinion on both cases. What I think is most interesting is the third party that has entered into this battle. The blogger.
Today Crickey posted a blog challenging people to "out" Woman's Day editor Fiona Connelly.
By posting this blog, Crickey have basically given their readers permission to right a wrong... well in their opinion anyway.
Who died and made Crikey God?
Why should they be the ones controlling retribution for Therese Rein? And, didn't anybody stop and think that this blog and its associated sites have political undertones that could benefit from a glowing report from Ms Rein's influential hubby?
When bloggers start to assume positions as moral gatekeepers, who reigns (pardons the pun) them back in? Is this, like the private turning public, just a fact of life or are we seeing the fourth estate actaully rear its head and take a position of marshall law?
Personally, I think it's really scary. That someone (an influential blogger at that) would persecute someone else for just doing their job seems a bit archaic to me. Grow up and do unto others is my opinion....