Do celebrities owe us an explanation?

Every Monday, Matthew Eisley faces off against a guest columnist on a topical issue; this week it's deputy metro editor Richard Stradling. This week's topic: The right to privacy. First up, Eisley.

Eisley: If you're a public figure, come clean

There's not much more ironic than celebrities who get rich peddling their public image whining when people want to know the truth about them.

These days it's skirt-chasing Tiger Woods pleading for privacy while reluctantly 'fessing up - even though 90 percent of his "earnings" come from persuading people that he's a role model they should spend money worshipping.

"I'm Tiger Woods," his famous early Nike ad said. Maybe Tiger can "just do it," but he can't just ignore it or just tell everybody to bug off.

The same goes for preachers and politicians who show off their families on TV in search of support - or, worse, fulminate for "family values" - only to turn out to be adulterers.

Their worst sin might be their hypocrisy, which rightly costs them their credibility.

That's why it's galling when Kate Gosselin of "Jon and Kate Exploit Eight" bellyaches about magazine photographers staking out her profit-driven public appearances with her children and her ubiquitous TV camera crews.

Or when the remaining Jackson Five singers demand solitude as they go on "Larry King Live" to promote their new "reality" TV show.

As the Roman philosopher Get Realius said, "He who long lives lavishly by the spotlight shall suffer scrutiny by the spotlight."

The way to keep your life private is to keep it private, not market your false image to a public that props up your indulgent lifestyle.

And it's not, Tiger, to cruise the world in an ostentatious yacht absurdly named "Privacy."

You might as well carry on with barmaids and strippers in a VW bus dubbed "Discretion."

You want privacy? Give up the celebrity life.

Stradling: Tiger doesn't owe the world an explanation

The midnight ride of Tiger Woods and revelations of his marital problems and alleged infidelities got people talking about whether a man of his position is entitled to privacy.

The real question: Does Tiger owe you and me an explanation? I don't think he does.

I know many think we're entitled to details of Woods' private life - in essence that he shouldn't have a private life. He's a celebrity, after all, handsomely rewarded for his public image, a great golfer with a winning smile paid to sell Buicks and pricey watches.

But I missed the part where Woods promised to be virtuous. His face seems to be everywhere, but I can't say I've ever heard the man speak, except in sound bites, and never about how we should live. We decided Woods was a good husband and family man; we fill in the blanks, make celebrities more than they are.

There are times when public figures owe us an explanation. We count on politicians like Bill Clinton for their judgment and integrity. You would rightfully want Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker to come clean if you sent them money or thought they had the ear of God. And OK, I was disappointed Winona Ryder got arrested for shoplifting, but that's on me.

I'm not saying what Woods or any other ill-behaving celebrity does in private isn't important. It certainly matters to their families and friends and to those who use their images to sell movies and sports drinks.

And it apparently matters to people who think celebrities are models for living. I'm not one of them. And frankly, from what I see in the media, we don't suffer from knowing too little about the private lives of celebrities.