The importance of images in our culture was shown by the controversy caused following the publication of the photos of François Hollande wearing his biker’s black weatherproof ‘onesie’ and allegedly visiting his new girlfriend, and those of Maltese girls wearing much less.
The undignified sight of Hollande, being driven by one of his bodyguards on a scooter à trois roués (three-wheeled) is not the usual story that the French are accustomed to read about. While the mainstream media did not investigate or report the rumours doing the rounds these past months, Closer, the celebrity magazine, had no qualms to publish the pictures, and alleged the nightly ‘escapades discretes’ (discreet getaways) with the actress Julie Gayet.
In the meantime, Valerie Trierweiler, the First Mistress of France, was ensconced in the Élysée Palace oblivious to her lover’s ‘affaire’.
Although Hollande has not denied the liaison, he considers his trysts to be of a private nature as he reaffirmed during Tuesday’s press conference. Closer believes that the opposite is the case.
In 2012, Closer had published photos of a topless Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, holidaying at the French château belonging to the Queen’s nephew, Lord Linley. While a valid public interest argument can be made for the publication of Hollande’s photos, the publication of Middleton’s photos was an intrusion in a public person’s right to privacy.
Meanwhile, the news in Malta was mainly made by the explicit selfies of several young Maltese women posted on a website, since then, removed. However, the photos went viral as many with an internet connection downloaded and distributed the scurrilous images.
Unfortunately, worse images followed. A French photographer uploaded footage of him engaging in a sexual act with a Maltese male model. The photographer has since been condemned to a two-year suspended sentence. The police are also investigating a video showing a prominent local actress similarly engaged in a sexual act with her ex-boyfriend.
Such salacious images literally travel at the speed of light. ‘Once on the internet, always on the internet’ is a terrifying truth. Many learn the lesson when it is too late to remedy the situation. By that time the damage would have been done. The images live on computer desktops of the many who relish their distribution.
The abovementioned cases are different in many respects but are similar at least in one fundamentally important aspect: different dimensions of privacy and its importance for individuals and societies.
Though a commonly accepted definition of privacy is the condition of being protected from unwanted access by others is possible, its interpretation in concrete situations does vary. Privacy is considered to be important but it is not equally guarded everywhere and by everyone.
More and more people are today ready to make public what up to a few years ago was given a ‘top privacy’ status. While officially, everyone is for data protection, in the real world, a different scenario is on the rise. An increasing number of people are voluntarily putting on the net provocative selfies and its variants as well as confidential and sometimes incriminating, information about themselves.
The Maltese are no exception. Exhibitionism – especially when it borders on debauchery – is turning out to be a national fetish on which the voyeur feasts freely.
Some of the recently publicised cases are probably a sign that Malta has also come of age regarding revenge porn. As privacy is still considered to be of value, removing it becomes a lethal attack weapon of attack. Revenge porn does just that. Photos and video clips which sometimes are taken in an intimate – even a caring or loving – situation are exposed publicly, especially after one of the person is dumped for another, hence the term revenge porn.
While the morphing of privacy into an attack weapon that targets private people is condemned by most, a wider debate ensures when aim is taken at public persons or celebrities, particularly those puffed up by media hype.
The reporting of the alleged Hollande ménage à trois (household of three) can serve as an example. Had the Hollande story been broken in the Anglo-Saxon world, all the main newspapers and TV stations would have been agog about it in an endless news cycle. It would have been the story. Various commentators noted that French journalists took a more guarded approach, as evidenced by their behaviour during Hollande’s press conference last Tuesday.
Imagine what would have happened had David Cameron or Barack Obama been caught in a similar situation! We know what happened to a certain Bill and a certain Monica. The media scrum was not mainly because Clinton was using the hallowed Oval Office for politically unorthodox practices. Neither was Clinton’s somewhat restrictive definition of what amounts to sexual activity the root of the controversy.
There is a cultural difference between the American and French understanding of the right to privacy of their political leaders. The former reveal while the latter conceal. The official French motto of liberty, equality and fraternity has an unofficial tag to it: privacy.
For example, many a British and American politician had to resign ignominiously when it was discovered that he was playing away from home, but another François in French politics got away with having a daughter with his mistress Anne Pingeot, and the public only knew of their existence at Mitterrand’s funeral when the daughter, Mazarine, was nearly 20 years old.
There is a cultural difference between the American and French understanding of the right to privacy of their political leaders
The Americans were once secretive about the sexual escapades of their leaders. But things change and are changing even in France. The floodgates were open when President Nicolas Sarkozy’s divorce with his second wife and subsequent marriage with a third, Carla Bruni, played out like a soap opera in the French media in 2007 and 2008.
Technology is one of the reasons that brought about this change, as well as the laissez-faire attitude towards privacy of many private individuals.
Technology first brought with it the possibility of 24/7 commercial TV channels with emphasis on news. These two factors together gave us a market-driven concept of journalism.
Besides, the omnipresence of the media, particularly television, made the latter a staple component of politicking. The more politicians used, managed and tried to manipulate the media, the more media people felt they had the right to intrude in the lives of the politicians who were being manufactured in the image of likeness of television.
Mobile digital devices then became part of our everyday attire. Being in contact 24/7 became the ‘in thing’. And, in the digital world, being in contact provided a multi-sensorial way of being present: sound, text and visuals.
Even private individuals are fashioned in line with the characteristics of the mobile communication devises. Communicating 24/7 (or that part of it which is humanly possible) does not leave much scope for a private life, does it?
If you are not happy with all this texting, sexting, or selfing, it is probably best to blame it on your smartphone and other mobile communication devices. Just remember that this attitude is very contagious and that you can soon be its next voluntary and contented victim.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt