A moral minefield - the public’s right to know vs. the individual’s right to privacy.

We live in a society that thrives on publicity. We have magazines, websites and television shows all dedicated to the cult of celebrity. We follow their every movement, whether they’re walking the red carpet at a movie premiere or simply walking to the shops. But what gives us the right to pry into the lives of the famous? The justification has been made that, by placing themselves in the public eye, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy. What’s in the publics interest is fair game for journalists and yet, should this same justification also apply to those individuals who are thrust into the public eye? Victims of disasters or relatives of the deceased? When does the individual’s right to privacy surpass the public’s right to know?

According to the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA 2011), respect for the truth and catering to the public’s interest and right to know are all key principles of professional journalism.  Public interest, however, means more than what the public finds to be interesting. Indeed, something that is in the public interest may be of no interest to them whatsoever. For something to be in the public interest, therefore, it must be something that will increase the knowledge, welfare or wellbeing of the public. Similarly, it may be an issue that directly affects the welfare of the public, like the knowledge that the Prime Minister may no longer be capable of adequately fulfilling their duty. From this, we can see that public interest must be driven by more than mere curiosity.

This mantra of ‘the public’s right to know’ has often been used to justify the breach of an individual’s privacy. Indeed, it may often be the case that the public did need to be informed of certain events or information that had an affect on their own lives. Conversely, the opposite of this may also be the case, where privacy was breached merely to entertain the public, not to cater to the public interest. So, where should the line be drawn between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy? Before we delve attempt to draw any conclusions, let’s first examine what is meant by the term ‘privacy’.

Essentially, privacy is the right to keep personal information undisclosed (Archard 1998). This personal information, which includes photos, sounds recordings, written statements etc., is protected in Australia by the Privacy Act of 1988. Publishing private information can cause significant harm to an individual and thus, the media must not seek to publish personal information unless a justification exists (Australian Privacy Foundation 2009). That is, the information must be in the public interest and not what the public is interested in.

Campbell's right to privacy was breached.

However, this hasn’t stopped some media outlets using the excuse of public interest to expose the private information of certain individuals. Think of the David Campbell scandal. Campbell, former minister for transport, was exposed by Channel Seven after attending an after-hours gay sauna. Was this story in the public interest, or merely of interest to the public? There was no evidence to suggest that his actions were negatively affecting his ability to carry out his role as minister for transport. Despite the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) justifying the breach of privacy as in the public interest, “most of the media world, and most journalists…think there was zero public interest in Channel Seven's broadcast” (Ackland 2011).

With the help of technology, those in the public eye are under more scrutiny than ever before. A contradiction seemingly exists between our infatuation with the lives of public figures and our own concern for personal privacy. We want our own privacy respected but also like to indulge in the private lives of others. Can we effectively balance this contradiction? The line between privacy and public interest has always been blurry. However, we should remember that, while scandals may be juicy, their consequences can be more far-reaching than we realise. How did Campbell’s family feel after their private information was exposed for the world to see? Privacy should be treated with respect. An individual should not have to sacrifice their privacy only in order to entertain the public. Only when public interest is a stake should individual privacy be breached.




References:

Ackland, R. (2011), ‘Muddle-headed watchdog leaves the privacy door ajar’, SMH, 18 Feb. Viewed September 23 2011 <http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/muddleheaded-watchdog-leaves-the-privacy-door-ajar-20110217-1ay3h.html>

Archard, D. (1998), ‘Privacy, the public interest, and a prurient public’, in Kieran, M (ed), Media Ethics, Routledge, pp 82-96.

Australian Communication and Media Authority (2009), ‘Privacy Guidelines for Broadcasters’. Viewed 22 September 2011 <http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib100084/privacy_guidelines.pdf>

Australian Privacy Foundation (2009), ‘AFP Policy Statement re Privacy and the Media’. Viewed September 23 2011 <http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/Media-0903.html>

Freedom of the press - how free is free?

In the aftermath of the News of the World hacking scandal, it seems that the notion of press freedom has become more pertinent than ever. 

It cannot be denied that a free press plays an intrinsic role in upholding the democratic values of a society. Indeed, freedom of the press has been championed as the very foundation of democratic societies. As former Prime Minister John Howard stated, “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” (Marr 2005). What do we mean by freedom of the press? Essentially, the freedom of the press implies a press separated from any institutional influences, which ultimately allows for the free speech of the people within society. The press, therefore, acts as a democratic vehicle for the citizens it represents. This separation from institutional influences is imperative. In order to uphold its important role as the Fourth Estate [vital to the checks and balances of a healthy democracy], the journalism industry must always remain free any government control or censorship. Censorship is detrimental to journalism, where any political interferences or pressures may limit a citizen’s input in the running of their government. 

And yet, can there be such thing as too much freedom when it comes to journalism? Who watches the watch dog? Indeed, the notion of press freedom has come under intense scrutiny in the past. Let’s take, for example, the recent News of the World hacking scandal.

Above: Image taken from Google. 

  After operating for nearly 170 years, the News of the World published its final edition on the 10^th July 2011. And the reason for its demise? A series of scandals revealed a deep-seated culture of unethical journalistic practices within the newspaper. The scandals involved a number of allegations that the News of the World hired private investigators to hack into the voicemail of numerous individuals, including actress Sienna Miller, Gordon Brown and Prince William (The Telegraph 2011). Apart from the sundry of high-profile actors and politicians, the paper is also accused of hacking the voicemail of 9/11 victims and their families and the voicemail of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. In January 2011, the British police opened an official investigation (Operation Weeting) into the hacking allegations. After a series of arrests and the announcement of two government inquiries, the News of the World said its final goodbyes.

   So what does this scandal mean for the journalism industry? According to Laurie Oakes, journalist and Walkley Foundation Advisory Board Chair, the major fallout affects of the scandal will be a decline in public trust of what journalists do and the way they do it (Walkleys 2011). From this issue of trust, journalists will no doubt be under increasing scrutiny. And, if there’s no trust, how is journalism expected carry out its important role as a vehicle of free speech. However, instead of viewing the scandal and its after effects as the end of news as we know it, journalists should instead view it as a wake up call. The scandal should act as a form of warning, signalling a change in journalistic values and practices is perhaps required. Ethics play an intrinsic role in journalism, thus journalists should learn and adopt the correct ethical practices. They must, in sum, be accountable.

Upholding the freedom of the press is vital. A free press is an essential element of democracy, creating well-informed citizens who are able to actively participate in and understand the running of their government and society. Journalists should learn from the past and strive to earn back the trust of the public whose interests they were created to serve.

For a complete timeline of the hacking scandal, visit The Telegraph here. 

References:

ABC (2011). Key plays in News of the World scandal. ABC News. Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-06/key-players-in-news-of-the-world-scandal/2784372>

Chandrasekhar, I (2011). Phone hacking: timeline of the scandal. The Telegraph. Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8634176/Phone-hacking-timeline-of-a-scandal.html>

Marr, D (2005). And to crown it all. SMH. Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/and-to-crown-it-all/2005/11/04/1130823397723.html>

Walkleys (2011). Where to from here? Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.walkleys.com/features/2457/>

WikiLeaks- friend or foe?

As the Internet is heralded as the champion of the information age, it seems that there may be such thing as too much information.

Since it’s formation in 2007, WikiLeaks, a database for untraceable mass document leaking, has continued to make headlines across the world. With the release of numerous sensitive government and military documents, WikiLeaks has lead to many red-faced politicians condemning the site as contemptible (think Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard). So, is the only objection to WikiLeaks its tendency to injure the pride of those who have something to hide? As the power and prominence of the site continues to grow, there can be no doubt that WikiLeaks is encouraging a long-needed shake up of the system.

According to WikiLeaks, its “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes…[and] to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations” (WikiLeaks). To achieve these goals, WikiLeaks states that it utilises journalistic and ethical principles and practices when researching and releasing leaked documents. In keeping a watchful eye on the governments of the world, it appears that WikiLeaks is taking on journalism’s traditional role as the Fourth Estate.

WikiLeaks believes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and opinion. To them, the traditional media was not stepping up to the mark when it came to informing society. According to WikiLeaks:

“We observed the world’s publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change” (WikiLeaks 2011).

In order to enable society to better inform themselves of the innate goings-on of those in power, WikiLeaks has opted for the model of transparency. To them, “transparency creates a better society for all people” (WikiLeaks 2011). Aligning themselves as part of the media, WikiLeaks is effectively replacing journalism’s old model of objectivity with what they claim is a new model of journalism. This new transparency model allows the public to view an original source without a journalist’s own particular bias obscuring or colouring the facts. Similarly, within this model, WikiLeaks is not for profit, works with rather than competing against other media organisations and does not have to answer to advertisers or shareholders.

Above: Image taken from Google.

Should journalists be feeling the threat from this technology-savvy site? With its goals to keep democracy in balance through use of transparency, will WikiLeaks ultimately replace the traditional media? According to some, this is a change that needs to happen. David Weinberger believes that the problem with journalism’s model of 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). Alan Mutter supports this, agreeing that journalism should replace this “threadbare notion [of objectivity] with a realistic and credible standard of transparency that requires journalists to forthrightly declare their personal predilections…so the public can evaluate the quality of information it is getting” (Sambrook 2010).

And yet, despite this support, WikiLeaks says that they aren’t out to replace journalists in their role of informing the public. Journalism and WikiLeaks can, in fact, work in harmony. WikiLeaks state that they “believe the world’s media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership” (WikiLeaks 2011). WikiLeaks has already allowed journalists to access information that would ordinarily be out of their reach. As Time Magazine believes, WikiLeaks “could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act”.  

WikiLeaks has its critics and, more than likely, it always will. The whistleblower believes that what they’re doing is right and, what is right is not always popular with those who are exposed as being in the wrong. However, simply vilifying or even shutting down WikiLeaks is no longer enough to curb this newfound transparency. WikiLeaks is not an isolated case in the information revolution; it’s now simply one of many whistle-blowing websites.

References:

Sambrook, R (2010) The World at Large. Available: http://blogs.edelman.co.uk/richardsambrook/2010/12/05/the-state-of-american-journalism/

Silverman, H. (2009). David Weinberger: Transparency Subsumes Objectivity. Available: http://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2009/12/29/david_weinberger_transparency_subsumes_objectivity__kmworld.