HYPOCRISY

Many individuals have too often bantered about the word hypocrite, myself included, without a comprehensive understanding of the definition of the word or act.

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. The word is derived from the late Latin: hypocrisis and Greek: hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself. As fallible human beings prone to making mistakes and errors in judgment, I respectfully submit that no one can truly know what beliefs, virtues or feelings another consciously possesses, regardless of their public actions. It’s the old adage, “Don’t do as I do; do as I say.” The truth exists on either side of that equation somewhere; therefore, it is impossible to determine a true hypocritical state of pretending versus truly believing and pointing fingers becomes meaningless.

Within the current situation in which we find ourselves involved, Clay Aiken has been accused of being a hypocrite, and because of the nature of the accusation, I will cloak it in that vein. There is no evidence to back up the claim of hypocrite. There is no evidence that Clay Aiken has ever condemned, nor denounced, the gay lifestyle. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary that he has embraced those of the gay community as friends, colleagues and employees, and generously aided them through his charity work. The act of inclusion does not and should not imply anything to the contrary. Since when are straight guys not allowed to socially interact with gays?

The refusal to answer a repetitive question from an annoying reporter is not a slam against an entire minority group; especially when you feel it is insulting. By the same token, a refusal from one’s PR person to not conduct an interview with one particular rabid magazine, which does not have your best interests at heart, is also not a slam against a minority group. It is his career that we’re talking about and I think he pays enough people to advise him on how it should be handled.

The term hypocrisy is commonly used in a way, which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals or standards than another group. Or in other words, you who accuse another doeth the same thing! It just all boils down to which side of the issue you happen to embrace.

The Right to Privacy

By definition, the Right to Privacy is as follows: n. “The possible right to be left alone, in absence of some “reasonable” public interest in a person’s activities, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity (such as a magazine or television show) violating the right. However, the right to privacy does not extend to prohibiting someone from taking another person’s picture on the street.”

Based on the law, it becomes evident why the mainstream media have chosen not to participate in the current smear campaign. Whereas a defendant like John Paulus in a possible lawsuit may be guilty of an alleged hate crime, harassment, or the invasion of privacy, not to mention defamation and character assassination, for the plaintiff in such a lawsuit the benefits do not outweigh the negative or financial ramifications. If the media, which have much deeper pockets, were to involve themselves, the situation would be entirely different. They know it and therefore have chosen to stay out of it.

A Smear Campaign

At the core of finding any alleged “truth” to this smear campaign, the fact remains the story was and is John’s to tell, such as it is, regardless of how he came in possession of it. As Billy Masters said, “As to Paulus and his motives, I think the bottom line for me is that this incident happened to him and he can make whatever decisions he wants on how to use it. He might do things that you or I might not do, but we’re not in his shoes.” Feb. 10, 06

Let’s follow this premise and assume you have a potentially damaging story to tell. And it is agreed that as a participant you also have the right to tell it. An honorable person might ask themselves, “Does my right to tell my story justify the potential damage I may cause for all concerned and will I feel vindicated if such damages occur?”

So, then you’re given the opportunity to tell your story a hundred different times and in a hundred different ways. Shouldn’t it end there? If not, why not? Did the telling of the story not create enough damage? Is that it? At what time does the “participant” have the right to branch off into unknown territory, of which he knows nothing about and was NOT a participant, and use it to further smear, defame, malign, humiliate, embarrass and assassinate another’s career, reputation and character? When does the right to tell a story become an obsession, which turns into an agenda? How obvious and absurd is that?

And what about those who support the storyteller? What is their excuse? They were not participants in the original story. No one was! For some, they do not even know the other side of the story and have disregarded the fact that one might exist. Supporting someone is one thing, but they have taken the word of a virtual stranger; someone they admittedly have never met before and have joined ranks in the smear campaign against an innocent person for their own purposes; be it revenge, hatred or retaliation. Of course, this would be vehemently denied, but the facts prove otherwise. Bottom line, all the evidence points to the fact that there is an agenda!

*By Polly Graf