I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

An uncertain boundary exists between the public’s right to information and individual's right to privacy, and as the reading outlined, both terms are highly ambiguous.

Breeches may include entering private property without consent, placing surveillance devices or taking unauthorised photos/ audio with view of publication. Invasion of privacy may be necessary or helpful. Hurst and White (1994) consider that interviews and pictures which convey the grief of disaster victims may encourage public support for the victims and focus attention on the problem at hand, such as inadequate policies. Families of victims may even find it therapeutic to talk about their grief; however on this note, Hurst and White (1994) argue traumatised citizens are more vulnerable to intrusive reporting and manipulation. Similarly, invasions of privacy may be pursued as a cheap attempt to grab attention and increase circulation, and this is where the ethics of journalists come into play.

Although journalists are advised to respect privacy in codes of ethics, laws and many provisions are vaguely worded, so the ultimate decision is left to the individual journalist or company. However it is equally difficult to more clearly define the law, as some breeches of privacy may be exceptional and necessary for public interest.

Journalists have a number of defences for invasion of privacy-

1) People surrender privacy rights when entering public life
2) It’s not illegal
3) Journalists have a duty to report private matters of interest to the public
4) It's up to the public to decide limits- journos are just conduits (although this ignores the role of individuals as moral agent)

However it is also necessary to consider the difference between a matter of public interest and something that is interesting to the public. What about when we die; are we entitled to more, the same or less privacy? Was it really in the public interest to reveal (after his death) that Peter Brock had an affair? Often it seems the majority of disclosures that breech privacy serve little value, such as reports on sexual misconduct. As White (2002) argues, intrusions of privacy often contribute to voyeurism, rather than public interest. Ultimately, controversial private material needs to be justified in the same way as any other material- does it provide a significant understanding that couldn’t be achieved otherwise. There is therefore also a need to consider institutional accountability- not just the ethical decision-making of individual journalists.

It is also interesting I think to examine the idea that public figures have less privacy rights. Archard (1998) states while it is naturally harder for public figures to keep matters private, it is unacceptable to dismiss intrusions on their privacy on the basis that public figures should be prepared to take bad publicity with the good. Such perspectives are also unfair to unwilling celebrities, such as those born to fame. He also argues that loss of privacy is not a fair price to pay for being famous. On the other hand Bentley (1992) argues that while the genuinely personal aspects of a public figure’s life should be protected by privacy, this protected area is necessarily smaller than that of the ordinary citizen. But who determines where to draw the line?

Clearly this topic will tie in closely to next week’s topic on ethics and I believe overall that journalists suffer from individual ethical dilemmas in determining what is rightfully private. It is also necessary to consider whether citizen journalism and increased globalisation of news will have an even more detrimental effect on privacy in the future, as the demand for news content increases and anyone is capable of publishing information online, without the need for consideration of professional ethics.

Here are some interesting references for this topic-

Archard, D, 1998, ‘Privacy, the Public Interest, and a Prurient Public’, in M Kieran (ed), Media Ethics, Routledge, New York, pp 82-96

Belsey, A, 1992, ‘Privacy, Publicity and Politics’, in A Belsey & R Chadwick, Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, Routledge, New York, pp 77-91

Breit, R, 2007, Law and Ethics for Professional Communicators, 1st edn, LexisNexius Butterworths, Chatswood

Chadwick, P & Mullaly, J, 1997, Privacy and the Media, Communications Law Centre, Melbourne

Christians, C.G, Fackler, M & Rotzoll, K.B, 1995, Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning, 4th edn, Longman, New York

Hurst, J & White, S, 1994, Ethics and the Australian News Media, MacMillan Education Australia, Melbourne





So what do you guys think?

Is there a difference between the privacy afforded to public figures and that of the general public?

If you worked on a newspaper, how would you decide what to publish?