So Tiger Woods supposedly crashed into a tree and his wife allegedly rescued him by smashing an opening in the vehicle with a golf club. A golf club. As soon as I saw that piece of detail in the story, my gossip antennae raised. I joked: you mean a golf club was the only possible thing she could find to smash with? Sounds like a deliberate choice to me...hehe.. Sure enough, the gossip rags (TMZ supposedly being first to call it) are suggesting that the Woods were fighting over an affair. And so it goes and will go for as long as people are interested. But I'd like to think most people who've ever held an embarrassing personal secret close to their chests, hearts, or wherever they chose to hold it, or people who have had such a secret exposed, would understand the mercy of TMI--too much information please!
Not true if you're fully fixed on American popular culture and its burgeoning fare of reality TV, which compete fiercely to see who can succeed in exposing the most cringingly embarrassing detail of someone's life. If you're a true fan of the fare--soaking up any and everything from Biggest Loser to Atlanta Housewives--you may tend to believe exposure can only mean more popularity, right? So come on (you might say), hice up or pull off yuh clothes girl / boy and leh we see the exact size of that haarse! (Well, that's not exactly how the typical American call for vulgarity would sound, but those of you who read some of the fare offered in the GYblogosphere would get my drift.)
And it's not just American TV that provides all shades, shapes, and sizes of the arse you can ever hope for. No sir. The British tabloids and several other European and Asian based rags and TV shows have long-standing traditions of exposing people in compromising situations that frankly make America look tame. Matter of fact, for those of us who know them well, ain't nobody more fass than a Brit. Why else would their tabloids have the unofficial (some say official) notoriety of being the most vicious and best supported (by readership) of all?
Of course the tabloids and the public who support them can claim they're merely exercising their right to know about public officials and celebrities whose paychecks they help plump up and whose policies and campaigns they help support. Maybe so. But there seems to be no stop gate for how far some of these rags will go in their desire to expose someone. There should be a stop gate...some merciful TMI guide...
And it gets a little more complicated when the exposure seems voluntary as in the case of reality TV and social networking sites--facebook, blogs, Twitter and the like--doesn't it? Relatively ordinary folk can and do become minor or major celebrities on some of these shows / sites.
So here's a question for you: if someone discovers something...umm juicy let's say...about that ordinary-person-turned-celebrity's life, should he or she publish it claiming fans / stalkers / the interested following public have a right to know? How you answer that question depends on how fass you are, how much you delight in digging into people's business, how much or little you know about the success of lawsuits brought against those who have exposed others, and how much you care about how irreparably damaging (despite being on the winning side of a lawsuit) such exposure can be for that person.
I've had it up to here with the celebrity exposés, but on the other hand, I recognize the need to keep a vigilant eye on public officials.
As for social networking sites and all the exposing that can take place there...here...
I reveal quite a bit about myself here and on Twitter (I'm a bit of an exhibitionist if you haven't figured out by now), and I don't feel sorry for exposing the sick coward who thought (foolishly) that his veil of anonymity would remain intact in such a small internet networking community. But I draw the line...I invoke my TMI mercy rule at exposing anyone who may have been forced into the line of fire. I don't want to know why or how. Keep it covered. TMI.
