Sometime, somewhere, somebody coined the phrase “the public’s right to know.” I’ve never heard anyone take credit for it and, possibly, it’s because it’s a fraud invoked on the human race. A quite popular fraud, but fraudulent nonetheless.
There are many areas of a celebrity’s life the public has a right to know, most of them dealing with whatever he or she does in his or her chosen profession and whether or not the celebrity in question has a police record. Where and why the public has a right to know all the details of a person’s life (celebrity or common person) is something I’ve never had satisfactorily explained to me.
As far as Tiger Woods, the man was exposed as a womanizer and it has cost him dearly in areas such as the pocketbook (although I don’t believe he’ll be filing the short form come April), fan base (which, while it remains huge, has certainly been diminished by a great deal) and, by recent results, his game. Worse, it has shown him to be vulnerable, i.e. human, something neither he nor his late father, Earl, would ever want to admit, as it might cause him to lose his edge. Which, based on his play since his return, is the perfect adjective to describe what’s happened to him on the golf course.
What goes on behind closed doors, however, as long as it’s in within legal limits, is not, nor should it be, the right of the public. In fact, there is no need for the general public to know - although a strong case could be made for its desire to know.
I’ve made my feelings known in previous posts (see 12/3/09/ & 2/20/10, in particular). By gushing over every gory detail (fact or fiction), yet not adding anything substantial to their own lives, people are proving the line I first heard from my late, brilliant mentor, John Savage:
“You don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”