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