“Once you’ve lost your privacy, you realise you’ve lost an extremely valuable thing.”

–Billy Graham

Many argue over whether politicians have a right to privacy when it comes to their private life. Back during the 1960s, the role of the media was very limited due to many reasons; by then the television was a new invention and only the elites of elites were in a position to own them thus making the access to the very few recordings made for broadcast limited to a significantly small portion of the globe. Another reason is also the fact that during that time, the terms of John F Kennedy, a sense of privacy for politicians especially was considered a huge deal. The media was not considered pervasive but usually let the coverage of controversial incidences go in respect for the privacy of the individuals.

In today’s world it is hard to imagine the media that isn’t intrusive, especially into the lives of public figures like politicians. The advent of social media and other various forms of technologies has also made it easier to track down their movements and activities. A sharp contrast can be seen between the lives of John Kennedy and The Clintons, where the latter was supervised closely by the media that made all their private matters a public record. It can be argued however, that this whole concept is good for people in positions of authority as it allows for checks by the general population thus swaying individuals away from acts that may not be accepted in society. On the other hand, the violation of the most basic human right of privacy of public officials like politicians is not justified due to the fact that they are also human beings who’s job just so happens to require public attraction. Surly the role of the media has changed significantly from being conservative in not only what they published but also what and how they covered stories to being somewhat intrusive in the modern age.