Wednesday, January 13, 2016

David Bowie's Death & The Absolute Human Right to Privacy

 An updated Rant:

David Bowie has died. Everyone is surely aware of this by now. It's been one of the top WORLD news stories for days. When at most it should have been in the entertainment section.  I myself shared a memory of attending a concert. However, I do not lament the fact loudly, or at all,  that I was completely unaware of his illness or his struggle with illness. Though I consider myself a fan of his work.

Had David Bowie chosen to share  his plight with the world. That would have been his choice to do so. But, he did not choose to share the private details of his illness. He chose to keep his personal business to himself- And that is perfectly acceptable! I've no problem with that.

 In fact, I applaud the man for exercising his right to privacy.  What I can't fathom is why the main stream media does not? If the main stream media wanted to talk privacy and respect privacy the headlines below would not appear at all.

This headline for example:  David Bowie’s final, stunning surprise: despite worldwide fame, a cancer battle fought in secret. The use of the word secret is inappropriate and disrespectful. In my opinion.-  It should have read "a cancer battle fought in private"

Privacy is a human right- Secret implies something to hide- Mr Bowie had nothing to hide. His illness was his own private business, therefore it was not something hidden.

Then there is headline after headline of 'shocked' nobodies expressing surprise because they didn't know.
Queen's Brian May Shocked By Death Of 'Fearsome Talent' And 'Inestimable Loss'
Why, did he think he should know?  Why would anyone but those persons that Mr Bowie was comfortable sharing his most personal affairs with, think they have any right what so ever to  know another persons private business.


Absurdly I've seen numerous articles telling us all the reasons why someone would keep their business to themselves. Without  ever mentioning the absolute human right to privacy 

The reasons why some people hide cancer diagnosis
Political Correctness
Job Security
Shame
Not want to be identified with the disease 

I scour a heck of a lot of news daily and can't help but observe what I see as bizarre news coverage, that feels very much like social conditioning or perception management. 

Yet more bizarre news coverage- hattip  hubby: David Bowie Cremated in Secret  x 1
x 2 , x 3 examples

Sadly, I've yet to see  even one article that suggests David Bowie had every right to privately battle cancer if that is what he chose to do.  So, let me state the very simple plain and obvious truth as a fact!   David Bowie had every right to his own privacy & dignity in matters that affected him personally. Period.

And so do you and I!


14 comments:

  1. Now I feel better, because this was bugging me!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point, Pen.
    Another reason someone in Bowie's position may want to keep it private is that they may not want to be talking about it all the time to all sorts of people.

    If you have limited time, you have different priorities as to whom you want to talk to and about what you want to talk.

    The press like to promote "the public's right to know" but since when have the media been driven by the 'public's right to know'? If they were concerned with that, the media would publish the truth. Simple.

    No, it's about the media's 'right' to make money from everyone's private life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks james!
      You make some very good points about why a person with limited time, would not want to talk about the situation at hand all the time

      I was really struck by the media's coverage and hubby put it best when he said, paraphrasing here- it's as if the media is trying to portray privacy as an abnormal state of being, that has to be reasoned or excused away instead of just being normal human behaviour. And it really felt like some sick social engineering thing...

      Delete
    2. Hey james

      "If they were concerned with that, the media would publish the truth. Simple."

      Excellent point- but we all know the press does not concern itself with truth- only with managing perception and money making

      Delete
  3. Great point Penny! It is no one's business but his, just as if one of us peons becomes ill it is our own business and we need not share it if we don't want. I don't blame him at all for staying private, could you imagine the media circus?

    Well done as usual my dear!

    Buffy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Buffy :)

      Absolutely right Buff, so why does the media suggest or imply everything but that?

      Delete
  4. Everyone: It was time for a makeover and in case readers here hadn't noticed I like colour! And nature and birds, which explains my love of colour

    So, a new year. A more colourful look. But,Is it readable? Clear?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really thrown off by the background change, I can't lie, ha ha . . . it's okay, I'll get used to it. :)

    Totally agree by the privacy issue - but honestly, we've already lost all privacy. It's a 1984 world. Not saying we shouldn't rail against it, etc of course - just saying that . . . we've (in the West) already lost all sense of privacy as a community.

    It's a different world in Asia however, where the majority of the world lives - a totally different standard of privacy within your own community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Slozo; you'll get used to it.
      I was just tired of looking at the same old same old
      Privacy:
      Never to late to start taking our privacy back...
      It can be done...

      Delete
  6. Bowie was also very private about his sexuality, as was his right. We have lost something with our over sharing culture.
    I like the background change!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello anonymous

      "We have lost something with our over sharing culture"
      Wholeheartedly agree

      And a yes vote for the change, thanks :)

      Delete
  7. Hi Penny,

    I totally agree with your post here, and I like the new template.
    I had great respect for Bowie, and although I wasn't much of a fan, or a Queen fan either, I really, really liked the Bowie + Queen video "Under Pressure".
    Something that I became aware of after his passing is that he declined a so-called knighthood. If I had ever thought about it, I could have assumed that it had been offered to him, and the fact that he wasn't "Sir David Bowie" would mean that he had indeed declined it. But I never thought about it. And if I ever had, I would have had even more respect for him while he was still alive.

    Thanks!

    Phil K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I read he had declined a knighthood, which is interesting... Perhaps, he rejected some of the elitists ideals he may have promoted in his younger days- I don't know?

      LOl- not a Queen fan either- I find them quite annoying overall- But Bowie? I hitchhiked to buy concert tickets so... an undeniable fan


      Your welcome Phil K and thanks for reading!
      I'm glad you like the template :)

      Delete
    2. Privacy is becoming an outmoded concept in today's little world.

      It is my hope that the madness for constant communication devices, gadgets only part of our lives for the past 25 years or so, go the way of the dodo bird.

      People are not encouraged to be alone, that encourages thought not idle chatter.....

      Bowie died with dignity. He met death on his own terms and even left them with a final gift to decode for the next few lifetimes...

      He did it all on his own terms. I saw him back in the 1970's as Ziggy Stardust... and also as Commander Tom... I have so many memories of Bowie and super dance parties we used to hold playing his stuff...

      He was truly a class act.

      Delete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS