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.
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>
Alesha, you have struck at the crux of this debate when you said "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." The issue becomes how do you define public interest, and how do you know it is stake because different media orgnaistations have differnet news values. This was evident during the Campbell "affair" when other news chiefs from rival networks said they wouldn't have aired the footage. Although if they got the scoop first, it is fair to assume that they proably would have run the story - the business of news really is a serious businees.
ReplyDelete