Privacy vs Public Interest: The Public’s Right to Know and the Individual’s Right to Privacy

How do journalists determine what is privacy and what is public interest?

Should public figures like celebrities and politicians sacrifice their right to privacy for the sake of public interest?

 It is the job of journalists to I inform the public and make sure people know what is going on in the world around them and this includes information that is in the public interest. So deciding what should remain private and what is in the public interest is one of the biggest ethical issues that challenges modern journalists.  

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) explain that “respect for the truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism,” (MEAA Code of Ethics).

 So what is public interest then and how can we define it?

"Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on, or what may happen to them or others, then it is a matter of public interest,” (Hanson, 2011).

Let’s look at public interest compared with what the public is interested in.

Kim Kardashian is one celebrity that the public is interested in, we want to know what she is doing, what she is wearing and what is happening in her private life, but this does not have a direct effect on our lives so it is not in the public interest. However, interest rates for example do effect our lives and us personally so information on interest rates is in the public interest but the public generally aren’t interested in them.  

We want to read about the private lives of celebrities and politicians and not about interest rates and this is where it becomes hard for journalists to decide what they publish in the private verse public interest debate.  

A recent example of this comes from the David Campbell gay sex club incident that saw the former transport minister resign as a result of the exposure of his private life. This is a very controversial incident that questions whether this is an invasion of privacy by the media or whether the public had a right to know due to public interest.

In May, 2010 Channel Seven put to air a story which included footage of then Transport Minister, David Campbell leaving a gay club and earlier this year, ACMA declared Seven’s news story to be in the ‘public interest’. (ACMA, 2011)

As a politician Campbell chose to project an image of himself as a family man, he misrepresented himself and lied to the public so he could be lying about anything. His secret gay life was as Peter Meakin said “at odds with his persona”.

The question that remains here is whether David Campbell’s personal and private life affects his ability to do his job correctly. If the private life of the then transport minister was to affect the way he made decisions as a politician representing the public then I think it’s fair to argue that Mr Campbell’s private life is in the public interest.

Some people would class the exposure of David Campbell as an invasion of privacy and “Privacy and alleged invasions of privacy by the media are central issues in the ethics of journalism,” (Belsey, 1992).

If you were a journalist and you had to tell the public everything about your private life because they simply wanted to know would you be ok with that?

It seems that the public are concerned about their own personal privacy and on the other hand there is a desire to know the private and personal details of the lives of public figures. It seems hypocritical to want to maintain your own privacy but intrude on others who’s private lives you find interesting.

Journalists, looking to the future need to be very careful intruding into the private lives of others and be very specific when selecting what to publish in regards to privacy and public interest.

Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive?

Is it possible to respect the right to privacy and also provide the public with information at the same time?

The David Campbell example shows that the two are mutually exclusive, if his privacy was withheld then the information surrounding his resignation would have been withheld from the public.

But when it comes to the media each journalist has to make their own choices on what they publish and how they determine what is private and what is in the public interest. 

 If disclosing the personal information of someone is not in the public interest then we shouldn’t publish it at all

“While public figures necessarily subject themselves to scrutiny by virtue of their position in society, they do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether,” (ACMA, 2005, p.3).

 ACMA explains it well by explaining that there needs to be a balance between right to privacy and the media’s role of informing the public.

“Broadcasters should not use material relating to a person’s private affairs without that person’s consent, unless there is an identifiable public interest reason for the material to be broadcast” (ACMA, 2005, p.2).

References:

Australian Communication and Media Authority (2011), ‘Seven breaches Minister’s privacy but broadcast in the public interest’, Retrieved September 21, 2011, from http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD...PC/pc=PC_312442  

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

Hanson, N. (2011). Children to the fore as judges gag the world. April 27, 2011.  Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2011/news/children-to-the-fore-as-judges-gag-the-world/

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2011). Media Alliance Code of Ethics. Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html

Freedom of the Press: Hacked to death or the end of the news as we know it?

In 2005, then Prime Minister John Howard said “The best safeguards we have for our democracy are a robust parliamentary process, a free press, and an incorruptible judiciary. If you’ve got those three things, you’ve got a free country. If you don’t have all of those three things you don’t have a fully free country,” (Nash, 2005).

In 1888 Abraham Linchlon wrote “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Whitehouse.org, 2011).

So when it comes to journalism and the media, what is freedom of the press?

“Freedom of the press involves the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed or published matter without government restriction and subject only to laws of states and nations” (United Nations, 2010).

Why is freedom of the press important?

The media is often referred to as the fourth estate, this is because journalists have the power to uncover and publish the truth. The media acts as an almost regulatory body over governments and other powerful institutions in the attempt to let the people/public know the truth.

However, I think it’s fair to question whether the press really is ‘free’?

“Freedom of the press has always meant freedom from government control and censorship, but now the communications industry itself is the major censor, with control of access to the media resting in a very few hands,” (Barron, 1973).

Journalists and publications actually can’t publish anything they want due to privacy and defamation acts and also majority of the media we as the audience interact with is owned by a very concentrated ownership group, so it seems impossible to have a completely free press when there are endless restrictions that stop this from happening.  

Here are just some of the problems that limit freedom of the press:

·         Privacy

·         Media Convergence and Ownership Concentration

·         Political Pressures

·         Laws and Restrictions

But should journalists be allowed to have total freedom? Is there a point where too much freedom is harmful?

The recent break of the News of The World phone hacking scandal has shown where the line between freedom of the press compared to an intrusion of privacy has been crossed. A journalist hacking into phones and personal information without permission is deemed as unethical practice.

Is there ever a point where hacking phones and personal information is classed as being acceptable practice if it is in the public interest?

This is where the privacy verse public interest debate comes into it and coming to a conclusion seems near impossible.

In the digital age, what classifies as privacy and private information is certainly being challenged as satellite TV, internet based blogs, newspapers and social networking sites are more and more being seen as a source of openness and a source of private information made public.  

If twitter and facebook users are allowed to publish information freely, why can’t journalists? We allow bloggers to be labeled journalists or citizen journalists, but they aren’t expected to conduct themselves with the same ethical manners?

Thomas Jefferson said "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." (Whitehouse.org, 2011).

Is this the point at which journalists are permitted to publish so called private information?

With the increasing focus on the ethics of journalists and the impact of scandals like the phone hacking at NOTW, journalists now have a responsibility to conduct themselves ethically and regain the trust from the public.

Laurie Oaks explains that there are a large number of stories that have broken in the last 12 months, so there isn’t a need to get stories in an unethical manner. The main question here is why do we need to hack phones when there are great stories on our door step?

Malcolm Turnbull put it correctly when he said “We have moved away from a news cycle to a more opinion cycle” (Creagh, 2011).

Finally, ask yourself this, does the audience want to see sensationalism or objectivity?

References:

Barron, J. (1973) Freedom of the press for whom? Indiana University Press: Bloomington.

Creagh, S. (2011). A free society doesn't license newspapers: Turnbull. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from  http://theconversation.edu.au/a-free-society-doesnt-license-newspapers-turnbull-2355

Nash, C. (2005). Freedom of the Press in the New Australian Security State. NSW Law Journal 28(5).

Unknown. (2010). Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Education Associates. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408

Whitehouse.org. (2011). Abraham Lincoln. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/abrahamlincoln

Wikileaks: Is transparency the new objectivity?

Wikileaks believes “Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.” (Wikileaks, 2011).

So the organisation basically believe that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression and they also suggest that everyone has the right to seek information through any media regardless of frontiers in order to develop such opinions.

                                                   

As we all know, Wikileaks is famous for exposing confidential information that is extremely controversial in regards to security measures, other organisations, governments and even nations.

Would it be right for journalists to report the information that Wikileaks is literally leaking?

Does Wikileaks adhere to journalistic standards?

 And, is objectivity more important than freedom of information?  

Wikileaks argues that they are using transparency to enable the public to information they aren’t meant to know. The organisation explains that are simply doing the job that journalists won’t. “In the years leading up to the founding of wikileaks we observed the worlds media becoming far less likely to ask the hard questions of governments and other institutions” (Wikileaks, 2011).

Journalists need to use some level of objectivity when it comes to information that is crucial to the security of a country and its people, so if journalists were to report with total transparency what would this reflect in terms of ethical practice?

That’s not to say that journalists don’t report with transparency at all and they don’t even report with complete objectivity. This makes it hard to compare whether transparency or objectivity is more beneficial in journalism because I am more likely to ask the question:

 Does a level of complete objectivity or complete transparency exist at all?

Why Transparency?

David Weinberger (2009) states “the problem with objectivity is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark.” (Silverman, 2009).

So in this case transparency supersedes objectivity as it gives the reader the information that enables them to differentiate between biases.

We can not eliminate all secrets or live in a world where privacy and confidentiality no longer exist. With this in mind it would seem that transparency should be more prevalent in journalism as we move into the digital era where secrets are near impossible.

Information in the digital age reflects a level of openness where transparency plays a vital role.

Hamsher (2009) believes that “Our elite media has been sloppy, lazy and corrupt for so long they have apparently forgotten what the purpose of the fourth estate actually is” (Hamsher, 2009).

In regards to transparency, Wikileaks have been able to stay separate from the media but use them to disseminate mass information and as such Wikileaks can do the job that journlaists don’t by acting as a watchdog over governments and other powerful institutions.

Wikileaks material is checked and verified prior to being published so they are adhering to journalistic standards when checking their facts, so perhaps transparency could be more beneficial to journalists and the public if we maintain journalistic standards whilst utilising transparency.

A great question posed in response to the backlash against Wikileaks asks “Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our government’s failure to protect classified information?” (Clipston, 2010).

Are our governments simply scared of transparency, or does the public really not want to know such important information?

Why Objectivity?

Journalists have a high responsibility when it comes to reporting in this digital age where information spreads like wild fire and it could be fair to argue that total transparency is not a way of practicing good journalism.  

Since the inception of Wikileaks the U.S people have had a better insight of what goes on in government, but is this a good thing?  

Nick Minchin disagrees. He argues that keeping information confidential in regards to government is how they maintain a diplomatic country and diplomacy is how countries avoid war, so exposing this information can cause harm to peace within the entire world. “For nations to remain at peace requires artful diplomacy. If ambassadors and foreign embassy officials can’t honestly report back to their governments on what is happening on the ground in those countries, which they now can’t do because of the fear that the things they write will be exposed in the public arena, I think that will set back the course for diplomacy and I think that is bad for world peace” (Barwick, 2011).

                    

Perhaps it’s a question of privacy and public interest? Is freedom of information or safety more important in the public interest?

Wikileaks states that the organisation “has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media.” (Wikileaks, 2011).

Are journalists filling the role of objectivity by reporting on the information presented by Wikileaks?

Do we simply rely on the media to assess the information and provide the public with the objective view of the information?

Wikileaks is seen as being transparent, however they continue to be objective when deciding what information to publish, when to publish it and by whom it is published. This would suggest a bias within the organisation although they argue that they do not push a political agenda.

Whether transparency or objectivity is more important when publishing information, in regards to journalism I would argue it is important to allow the public to create opinions and a freedom to information provided the exposure of the information doesn’t result in harm or danger.

I think its fair to argue that as a certain compared model of journalism, Wikileaks conforms to some journalistic standards but disregard others and in the case of danger to security, objectivity would be more beneficial then total transparency.

To come to a conclusion I don’t think you can have either complete transparency or complete objectivity and journalists need to understand how to balance the two based on the information being reported.

               

References:

Barwick, H. (2011). WikiLeaks, media last bastions of trust for US. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/398086/wikileaks_media_last_bastions_trust_us/

Clipston, T. (2010). "Lying is Not Patriotic" – Congressman Ron Paul on WikiLeaks. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://www.suite101.com/news/lying-is-not-patriotic--congressman-ron-paul-speaks-a319557
Hamsher, J. (2009). Wikileaks: It’s Not the Media’s Job to Play CYA for the State Department. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://my.firedoglake.com/Jane-2/category/wikileaks/.

Sifry, M. (2011). WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://0www.newcastle.eblib.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=669788

Silverman, H. (2009). David Weinberger: Transparency Subsumes Objectivity. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2009/12/29/david_weinberger_transparency_subsumes_objectivity__kmworld.

Wikileaks. (2011). Wikileaks. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://wikileaks.org/