BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It’s what the public want to know about

By creating celebrities in the first place the media is often creating artificial demand for such stories; it is too simplistic to suggest that such stories are what the public wants in light of this. There will, however, always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. The media likes to portray itself as an important pillar in society and democracy, and while in some respects it is, by undermining the law by disregarding the right to privacy the newspapers are in fact damaging their own justification for their existence. The argument that many celebrities have courted the media for their fame is a misnomer, it can often be a bi-product of their career, why should their lives be necessarily punished via having their private lives scrutinized by the public just because it’s what the public may want?
No clear dividing line between public and private can be made.

Much media reporting of private lives is not being done under a watchdog mandate but rather to simply titillate the audience with gossip which is unnecessary for the public to know. Having distinct rules as to what can and cannot be reported is important to protect the lives of public figures who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Such firm distinctions between what is public and private and what can and cannot be reported will of course on occasion limit the press from unveiling a story which may be very important for the world to know about. However, on the whole, what such regulation would do is ensure that the vast majority of reporting which is of no use to the public and is being published at the detriment of someone’s private life is severely restricted, if not eliminated. This is the ethical thing to do as it ensures that the right to privacy is universal.
Those in public positions deserve the same privacy rights as the general public

Whether or not a public figure has chosen to be a role model, once they become one then they have a moral duty to society to ensure they represent all the things a good role model should. While a footballer may just want to be a footballer and simply reach the highest level in the game, they have to accept that people at the top of the sport are necessarily role models and it comes with the territory. In addition to this, many sporting personalities and others in different fields go on to promote organizations, either for charitable reasons or huge fees. If their behavior contradicts the message they are promoting the public has a right to know this as it is a case of deceiving the public. Being a public figure in any of its guises should be seen as a special exception to the privacy law as their success is founded on communicating though the media in one sense or another.
Unrestricted scrutiny into private lives could be a detriment to democracy

Many politicians in their campaigns make an explicit or implicit point out of emphasizing their family values and other aspects of their “private” life, for example by being photographed with their loyal family and through taking a stance on such issues as divorce, single mothers, sex education or drugs. If the public image such people seek to create is at variance with their own practices, such hypocrisy deserves to be exposed. This would not be to the detriment of democracy but in fact may improve it as it would encourage future politicians to ensure that they live by what they preach, rather than cynically trying to manipulate the media into creating a false image of who they are only for it to be fatally undermined by their own actions.
The media could be endangering peoples’ mental and physical health.

As previously stated upon entering a profession which involves being in the public limelight one should expect to be put under such stresses. If you are publicly known, there will be a demand for information about you and the media is simply obtaining stories which their readership wish to consume. The Diana example was, as the opposition argument expresses, an extraordinary case; one which is extremely rare and from which lessons have been learnt. However there are codes of ethics which all journalists sign up to which contain caveats to ensure that physical and mental harm is kept to a minimum if in existence at all. While on occasion a journalist can fail to live up-to these ethics they are, on the whole, well adhered to and in those instances when not, professional sanctions often take place to minimize such an issue from occurring again.
Those in power need to be held to account

All people that are considered public figures have, to one degree or another, the power to affect society; be it in an overt way via politics or economics or more subtly via changing peoples’ perceptions of the world. These people need to held to account and the media is the most effective way of doing this as normal people do not have the time or resources to scrutinize everything pubic figures are doing whereas the media can. If the private lives of public figures are conflicting with their actual public persona it is in the wider interest to reveal this. For example, in 2009 during the UK’s “MPs expenses scandal” it was revealed that some MPs, whose responsibility it is to create and review laws, were breaking their own tax laws in their private lives. This clearly demonstrates a misuse of their position and deserves to be known.[1] Another such example can be seen with golfer Tiger Woods who was seen to represent excellence and determination in sport and most importantly was presented as an ideal clean-cut role model. However this image was found to be a sham when stories into his private life revealed he was unfaithful to his wife and he subsequently admitted to numerous affairs. This came to light as a direct result of media reporting into his turbulent private life and it is in the public interest to know such information due to both the power he and others wield as public icons and the money generated from their public image. [1] Prince, R. (2009) MPs Breaking Tax Laws, Chief Inspector Says.” [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]
It’s what the public want to know about

Newspapers are simply publishing the kind of stories the public want to read, it is no accident that the best-selling newspapers in the UK are the tabloids which regularly publish stories into the private lives of celebrities and that some of the highest rating news shows in the US are loaded with celebrity gossip. The News of the World, which pushed the boundaries of intrusion right up to its closure in 2011, was consistently Britain’s most-read newspaper.[1] When you enter a career which is in the public domain, in particular those such as acting, which often requires courting the media to gain publicity, it is well known that intrusion into your private life may occur. It could even be argued that by entering such a profession you agree to forfeit your right to privacy as a condition of entry. Thereafter, when success has been gained via manipulating the press it is hypocritical to complain of “press intrusion”. Celebrities should not bemoan the media for simply providing information that the public wish to read. [1] Audit Bureau of Circulations. (2011) National Sunday newspaper circulation June 2011. [online][accessed 14 May 2013]
No clear dividing line between public and private can be made.

No clear dividing line can be drawn between public and private behavior; drawing up rules would be arbitrary and would prevent some corrupt, dubious or dishonest behavior from being exposed. For example, President Mitterrand of France hid his cancer from the French electorate for years. Was this a public or a private matter? He also had a mistress and illegitimate daughter, who were secretly taken on some of his foreign visits at state expense.[1] Again, is this a private or a public matter? The creation of solid distinctions would undermine the power of the press to carry out its watchdog role because in a scenario where such strict rules existed something in the public interest could be transpiring in the private lives of public figures and the media powerless to report it. [1] Allen-Mills, T. (2009) From The Archive: Mitterrand’s Illegitimate Daughter is Revealed. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011](paywall)
Those in public positions deserve the same privacy rights as the general public

Many public figures achieve celebrity status largely by mistake; it is a by-product of their pursuit of success in their particular field. For example, most professional footballers when young simply wanted to become the best player they could be, at the highest level they could reach. As Tottenham Hotspur Football Club defender Benoit Assou-Ekotto has stated, he had no desire to end up in an office job he wasn’t suited to so football became the means to ensure he could live out his life comfortably. Expelled from school, he assumed the profession he was naturally good at, just as a natural mathematician goes into engineering.[1] They do not wish to be “role models” and claim no special moral status, so why should their private lives be subjected to such public scrutiny? Individuals who happen to be public figures still deserve the same rights to privacy as the rest of us; simply because they may have a degree of fame does not make them fair-game. [1] Hytner, D. (2010). Benoit Assou-Ekotto: ‘I play for the money. Football’s not my passion’. [accessed July 19 2011]
Unrestricted scrutiny into private lives could be a detriment to democracy

Continual probing into the private lives of public figures actually harms the functioning of democracy. Very few potential political candidates, for example, will have entirely spotless private lives, free from embarrassing indiscretions committed while young and irresponsible. The prospect of fierce and unforgiving press scrutiny will thus deter many from seeking public office and deny their talents to the public good. Those who do present themselves for election will therefore tend to be rather unrepresentative individuals of a puritanical nature, whose views on sex, family life, drugs to name but a few may be skewed and intolerant as a result. The sex scandals of Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, to use just New York politicians, are not therefore representative of New York as a whole, but rather a system that is only attractive to those who believe in their own invincibility and potentially lack the necessary humility to truly represent their constituents.
Restrictions are unnecessary

This plan is unnecessary – Manchester United is one of the most successful club sides and often fields more locally-born players than its rivals. Most big clubs are working hard to build strong football academies to bring talented youngsters through. The logic is simple, home-grown youngsters can be developed much more cheaply and easily than foreigners. In any case, money will still remain vital to success – this plan would mean that the richest clubs will simply pay silly sums of money to buy up all the best local players. Therefore, competition within domestic leagues would not even up, it would simply lead to a re-shuffling of the best home-grown talent. Really the FIFA proposal is just an attack on English football clubs as they have been so successful recently. The issue wasn’t raised previously when Italian and Spanish club sides dominated European competitions.
It doesn’t solve the problem of protecting countries outside of Europe from losing players

In practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future. And what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country?
It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues

Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.
It will improve the quality of the national team

The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most home-grown ones. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. It also is an indictment on the school programs in place and youth football as a whole. It has little to do with a lack of opportunity at club-level, for clubs will always look locally for cheap, ready-made talent. They are forced to look overseas because foreign-born players are proving to be better bets. Furthermore, these foreigners thereafter assist the few local-born players who have made the grade. Therefore, if you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will actually weaken both club football and the national team.
It will encourage fans to support their local clubs

Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society.
Restrictions would prevent the poaching of the best youngsters from poor nations

The youngsters from poor nations who excel in Europe do so because of their move, not irrespective of it. It is a fallacy to suggest that all players develop in a vacuum, that their ability is irrespective of their development opportunities. For the best youngers in poor and under-developed nations, being poached by the rich European clubs is a way out, a means to realising their obvious talent. Taking away that source risks wasting not only a precocious young talent but also denying him the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, it can be expected that the poached youngsters will give back to their host countries, in the form of national team appearances and domestic league endorsements, later in their careers.
The sport’s governing body, FIFA, wishes to implement a ‘six plus five’ that would be enforced by each member association

Sporting organizations, of which FIFA is merely a more powerful example, cannot and will not be permitted to introduce a rule that denies otherwise-qualified persons from maximizing their income by moving overseas. Furthermore, and regarding the six-plus-five criteria specifically, the five foreigner-limit applies only to those which are not home-grown, encouraging the bigger clubs to look abroad for younger talent to bring into their academies. Once in the academy, they will gain home-grown status and therefore not count as one of the five foreigners. Therefore, FIFA’s proposal does not fix the problem but exacerbate the fears of exploitation.
It is illegal under European Union law.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations"[1] [1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...
Restrictions are unnecessary

Competition would actually improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs can buy up all the best global players and so dominate domestic competitions – often no more than two or three teams have a real chance of winning the big European leagues.  This makes tournaments predictable and boring, while clubs become the playthings of billionaire owners. Even international club competitions like the European Champions League are now dominated by just a few teams – in 2008 three of the four semi-finalists and both finalists were English. Forcing clubs to develop home-grown talent would level the playing field, make money less vital, and give more teams a chance to compete for top honours. This would inadvertently drive players to get better, because there  would be fewer short-term fixes available to a team’s poor form.
It doesn’t solve the problem of protecting countries outside of Europe from losing players

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.
It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues

Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent.
It will improve the quality of the national team

Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side.
It will encourage fans to support their local clubs

A focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent?
Restrictions would prevent the poaching of the best youngsters from poor nations

This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country.
The sport’s governing body, FIFA, wishes to implement a ‘six plus five’ that would be enforced by each member association

The six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs.
It is illegal under European Union law.

FIFA’s plan is illegal under European Union rules: ‘The implementation by FIFA of this proposal in the European Union would violate EU law. The Commission is not considering any change to allow FIFA to push forward this idea. FIFA is aware of this fact.’[1]. The rules say that you can’t discriminate against people from other EU countries on the grounds of their nationality - exactly what the six-plus-five plan would do. And the EU has agreements in place allowing people from non-EU European countries like Switzerland and Norway to work freely in EU states, plus a lot of countries in Africa and the Caribbean as well. This means most of the overseas players currently with European clubs would be able to take FIFA to court if it tried to put its plan into practice. And if six-plus-five won’t work in Europe, there is no point applying it elsewhere. [1] BBC Sport. (2008, May 30). FIFA backs Blatter on quota plan. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from BBC Sport: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7421348.stm