Jane Devin

On CourtTV, Catherine Crier asked Krista Barth, an attorney for Howard K. Stern, to address Stern’s moral responsibility in the death of his partner, Anna Nicole Smith. Smith, after a lengthy investigation, was declared to have died as the result of an accidental overdose of medication that she took of her own accord. It was a tragedy. A beautiful woman, beset with troubles, struck down at only 39 years old. Barth graciously sidestepped the question. It’s not a legal matter, and it would probably be improper for Barth, in her role as attorney, to speculate on Stern’s moral responsibilities, especially in a climate that is clamoring for blame to be assigned, and punitive measures to be taken.

The populace, gathering steam from a melodramatic media, is demanding not so much an answer as a public self-flagellation by Stern. Collectively, the opinion seems to be that Stern should not be given a chance to grieve, or even a day’s reprieve from the daunting accusations that began with the overdose death of his partner’s son six month’s earlier. He should not be able to heal, if ever, this collective believes, until he shoulders whatever blame – all the blame – for the actions of his partner.

People who are critical or resentful of the privileges of celebrity should understand that there’s a heavy counterweight to those privileges. Microscopic scrutiny and bold intrusion into areas that most of us would consider highly personal exact a toll on public figures, and the price can be heavy. Love, family, disputes, guilt, healing, pain, births, addictions, joys, problems and mistakes – every experience in the human spectrum – are for sale in a celebrity’s life. And everyone, from the celebrity’s bank teller to their garbage man, will have a story to tell, and sadly the public will buy it.

Howard K. Stern was not a celebrity, but his connection to one has left him embroiled in a media-driven public controversy. In this, a power has been ascribed to Stern that he simply did not have – the power to break Anna’s twenty year old drug habit – and from that wrongful perception, all manner of accusations and blame fell. His personal grief – his feelings for Daniel and Anna – his sense of loss, and his pain, are now not expected to be private matters. Instead, the raw and torn Stern is supposed to be laid bare for the public until the basest of human appetites have been filled.

The unexpected death of a loved one almost universally brings about reflections on what family members could have-should have-would have done. The feeling that one is to blame in some fashion for the accidental death of a child or spouse is not at all uncommon. We heal, each of us, in small steps, and often find that forgiveness, of ourselves and others, only comes at the end.

Howard K. Stern’s moral responsibility, to himself and to his family, is to properly grieve and heal so that he can move forward, and rebuild his life. Whatever sense of guilt or responsibility he may carry is on his shoulders alone. Whatever pain and sorrow he feels is his personal burden, and he has every right to keep his feelings private and out of the spotlight.

No one has the moral obligation to lay their emotions bare, much less participate in their own exploitation. Stern, a man who has been dehumanized by a rumormonger press, certainly has no such obligation to them, or their clamoring public.

It seems to me, in this case, that the moral responsibility that should be debated is that of the media to their news subjects; and by way of them, the public’s interest in destructive tabloid coverage.

Tonight I was watching Greta VanSusteren. After giving some pretty creative legal advice to Birkhead’s attorneys (courtesy of her husband John), and having her back patted by the majority of her panel, VanSusteren said something that I found, well — disturbing at best.

VanSusteren’s show, which has taken to impaling Stern’s camp at every opportunity, directed their aim tonight at Stern’s move for an impartial jury in the Daniel Smith inquest. “But he’s a witness,” they said, “he has no standing.” Yes and no. Stern is a witness, but was also in the hospital room when Daniel died. If there is any ruling of foul play — which most objective experts agree is unlikely — Stern could face the possibility of being a defendant in a criminal case, which distinguishes him from all other witnesses. As such, it would seem clear that he has more than a passing interest in a non-biased jury.

The potential for bias arrived when the original medical examiner in the case stated her belief that the death was “suspicious,” even though there were no facts from which to draw that conclusion. Add to that Anna’s death, and all the accompanying publicity, largely negative when it came to Howard K. Stern, and it’s clear that this is no normal, everyday Bahamian inquest, where seven non-connected jurors dispassionately weigh evidence. Instead, you have a jury pool that has been connected to this case in every way, from tabloids to television to talk radio. These connective mediums, where theories abound and uninformed opinions rule, cannot be ignored. It’s only common sense that Stern would take every measure possible to ensure that he gets the least toxic jurors from a poisoned pool.

On Van Susteren’s panel, only Gloria Allred agreed. The rest of the panel — and now a large percentage of the population of two countries — would like to see Stern lay down and take what they feel he has coming. It’s highly ironic that the same media that successfully spread poison and ill-will toward Stern, would question the necessity of doing everything possible to ensure a fair jury.

Towards the end of VanSusteren’s show, as she was speculating about what the Bahamian judges might rule in inquest and paternity proceedings, she raised the bogeyman of tourism. To wit, if the Bahamian judges were to make an unpopular decision, no matter how in accordance with the laws of their country, there might be an significant impact on the tourism-driven Bahamian economy.

I’m not sure when the justice system, here or in the Bahamas, became an appropriate target, implied or otherwise, for threats or blackmail, but it’s an ugly proposition. Rule according to the mob or else watch your unemployment lines grow? The mere suggestion maligns the integrity of the courts. And for Van Susteren, an attorney, to suggest it only casts aspersions on her own intentions in covering the case.

It’s one thing if individuals decide to remove their dollars from an enterprise or country in protest of something, and I do believe there are a couple of online petitions for a Bahamas boycott right now. But when a legal program suggests a direct link between tourism dollars and a court’s ruling, it assails the virtue of an objective justice system, which should never be swayed by considerations outside of the law.

Compassion is the basis of morality.
– Arnold Schopenhauer

When Princess Diana was killed after paparazzi chased her car through tunnels, much talk was had about a public figure’s right to privacy vs. the public’s “right to know.” That phrase, the “right to know”, is misleading. It should more properly be called the paparazzi’s desire to make living. Surely, the public did not need to know that Diana was traveling in a car that night. Her evening with Dodi Al-Fayed would not affect the public in any significant way. Still, the paparazzi was there, endangering everyone traveling by way of the tunnel, but leaving two people dead, and one with long-term injuries.

The talk soon faded, only to be highlighted in cursory fashion when other celebrities suffered near misses. When Barbra Streisand and James Brolin were run off the road, and Lindsay Lohan had a minor car accident, both incidents caused by overzealous photographers, the public was treated to a few moments of a tabloid-driven media that seemed to be examining their conscience. And then those moments, as they had in the past, quickly faded.

It’s crucial that we open that discussion again. Not only about what rights a public figure may have, but also about what constitutes a “public figure.”

Is a parent with a missing child a public figure? Anyone who is being questioned in conjunction with an investigation? What about the partners, friends, or relatives of a celebrity?

If a public figure is to be defined as one who is in a position of celebrity or authority, then what should their expectations for safety, privacy, and fairness be? Does being a “public figure” mean that one is essentially open game for all that are up for the hunt of another human being? If so, what should that hunt entail? Photographs only? What about damning speculation or fictitious stories?

When the media is accused of exploiting an individual for increased ratings or circulation, the answer given is almost always some version of “well, they asked for it.” They’re a public figure, the media decries, and they should expect this.

Should they? The actor Pierce Brosnan was also in his car when the press chased him. He had his two children in the back seat. They were fortunate not to be the next fatalities caused by a guerrilla press.

Outside of celebrity circles, a prosecution-minded Nancy Grace battered an obviously frail and confused Melinda Duckett, the mother of a missing toddler. Duckett committed suicide the next day. Did Nancy think she was guilty? Did you? Will we ever know since Grace usurped the proper authorities and appointed herself investigator, judge, and jury?

In more recent news, Howard K. Stern, attorney and partner to a celebrity, has been exploited by a particularly vitriolic kind of journalism. Here, television lawyers and laissez-faire news analysts joined hands with tabloid editors in building a fictitious case against Stern during the six weeks his partner’s death was being investigated. Stern’s attorney, Lily Sanchez, called it the case that never was — a case that wasn’t a case at all. Yet even after his partner’s death was ruled accidental, the media did not stop.

I was taken on a wild ride last night when I tuned into the TV Guide channel. The program airing was Anna Nicole: The Next Chapter. Commentators included Brooke Anderson from Headline News, tacky self-promoter Bobby Trendy, and Jennifer Saginor. Saginor’s sole claim to the D-list of fame is being the daughter of Hugh Hefner’s former doctor. Still, she was given a place on the stage, and encouraged to share a conspiracy theory that was both vicious and absurd. The gist of that theory included several accusations, but namely that Anna’s death was staged, ala Marilyn Monroe, by a depraved Howard K. Stern. The same man, who, just hours earlier, was vindicated of any wrongdoing in the death of his partner, Anna Nicole Smith. He was cleared by an educated, involved, and knowledgeable team of police investigators and medical examiners — only to be victimized, once again, by a reckless television show.

When harm is done to one, harm is done to many.

Princess Diana had two children she never got to see grow up – two children who had to suffer because of their family’s status as “public figures.” Diana also had parents, a brother, other relatives, friends and fans. All of whom never got to see her radiant smile again.

Barbra, James, Lindsay and Pierce all have families – people who now have even more cause to worry about their loved ones. Melinda Duckett left many questions and a trail of tears behind, but her family mourns a double loss knowing they may never have answers.

Howard K. Stern is not alone in this world. His parents, siblings, relatives, and friends have all been affected by seeing this innocent man – their son, their brother, their loved one – persecuted daily by a bombastic media that showed no mercy. What Stern suffered, the horrible and unexpected loss of two loved ones within six months, is unimaginable to many of us. More so, when a long and damning trial-by-TV and tabloids followed. It’s a situation no human being should ever have to face, and I doubt many of us would have the strength, or the heart, to face it at all. “But he’s a public figure?” What a reprehensible excuse.

On the sidelines the unwitting public sits, blamed for being the underlying cause of yellow journalism and guerrilla press tactics. We want it, the media tells us. We “create the demand.” Which is quite the elaborate lie, given that we can hardly want something that we don’t even know exists.

We don’t know, until the media tells us, what a celebrity’s personal life is like. We don’t know who is under suspicion and who is not. We don’t know – and most likely would never wonder – what is in a celebrity’s garbage can, or what e-mails they’ve written, or what is in their personal diaries. In truth, it’s the media that sets the bar – seeking the most sensational story or photograph in the hopes that piqued public curiosity will result in more profit. And it’s that bottom line, rather than fact or truth, fairness or decency, which informs media decisions.

A misinformed public is an ignorant one. A false story is often repeated until it becomes Urban Legend. The public’s historical faith in a fair and accurate press is lamentably tainted. Innocent people are irreparably harmed and then discarded, left to pick up the pieces of their broken lives and tattered reputations alone.

It bears repeating. Harm done to one is harm done to many. And tomorrow, it could be you, or a loved one, that finds themselves in the crosshairs of controversy. I believe we would expect to be treated with fairness and integrity. Do others, because they are in the public eye, deserve any less?