If you’ve watched television news for the past month, you’ve seen the daily footage of camera crews permanently embedded in front of Bernard Madoff’s apartment building, ever vigilant - for what exactly?  Madoff is under house arrest and only surfaces for court apperances which are not spontaneous.  There is actually no story to cover inside or outside the apartment building:  nothing is burning, no hostages are being taken, no information is gleaned from seeing the awning, facade and sidewalk of the street where he lives.  (Part of the standard loop continues to incorrectly peg the address as a Park Avenue penthouse)  Far from livening the viewer’s interest with these visuals, any new developments seem already hackneyed because we’ve seen the shot so many times before that we go into an involuntary stupor and don’t even listen to the anchor’s drone.

     Presumably, the press is there exercising its valuable freedom, but freedom for some unfortunatey means deprivation of privacy for everyone else living in that building and on that block.  Most of us would be sorely put out having to face t.v. cameras each time we need to walk the dog or run an errand - think of all the people who can’t sneak a smoke or keep their bad hair days private anymore.  Since most t.v. news is strictly infotainment anyway, why shouldn’t networks have to go to court to get permission to congregate in front of a building for a month or more?  You need a permit to parade, protest or strike for just one day - why not permission to stalk for an unlimited period of time?  Alternatively, why can’t networks consider the needs of the innocent and take turns filming the outside of the building and pooling the footage among themselves?

     Ironically, if the government decided to put just one camera on that block for surveillance purposes, they would get a fight from the ACLU and Ron Kuby would defend Madoff’s right to not be punished before his trial.  Even if you confess, you’re still presumed innocent until proven guilty.  There are situations when the press is acting to benefit all of us by keeping us apprised of information we might not otherwise obtain.  In this case, the press serves no purpose but rubbernecking at the scene of nothing while harassing hundreds of people each day.  It’s time to rethink the concept of what is newsworthy and the concomitant question of when freedom of the press morphs into abuse by network paparazzi.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here