Chapter 12 + 13 Public Interest Private Lives and a Question of Legality

Chapter 12 by Ian Richards and ch 13 Mark Pearson

The is always a question about public interest and what is in the public interest. News stories may contain key elements of genuine human drama, have a combination of news values and they are of significance to major sections of the public. Yet at the same time they invariably provoke controversy.

What indeed do the 'public' and 'private' mean?

Both are ambiguous concepts and it is interesting to note that while many citizens object to the government gathering information of private citizens see nothing wrong with the use of hidden cameras or questionable means of photographers who have in fact invaded someone else's privacy. (p188)

A general view is that 'privacy is the condition of not having undocumented personal knowledge about on possessed by another'. (Parent, 1992:92) although it has been pointed out by Kieran 1997 that 'it is not merely particular information about our lives that is private but those areas of our lives that the information concerns.'

The notion that individuals have a right to 'life, health, liberty and possessions' has come to mean to many a type of entitlement regardless of how trivial it may at times be.

NOTIONS OF PRIVACY:

privacy can mean:
- the right to be left alone
- the right to control unwanted publicity about ones own affairs
- the right to withhold any information that one does not want made public.

Todays privacy laws generally have 4 distinct interpretations:
- intrusion: unwanted violation of ones physical solitude
- publication of embarrassing private fears
- publication of information that takes place in a false light
- and appropriation, meaning use of an individuals name, picture or likeness without that persons permission usually for commercial exploitation.

Journalists are propelled in the direction of revelation rather than concealment, of disclosure rather than protection. I think this is a key consideration which needs to be acknowledged when looking at notions of privacy and a journalists boundaries.

Journalists have put forward a number of justifications for favoring intrusion over respect for privacy:
- by entering public life individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy
- journalists have a duty to report private situations when these details could have relevance to the public performance of an individual or group.
- individual journalists are simply conduits for information and it is up to the readers/listeners/viewers to decide the limits
- if it is not illegal it must be permissible.

INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY:

The notion of individual autonomy is in fact fundamental. It is regularly invoked to defend a wide variety of rights, from the right to vote to the right to freedom of religion.

The freedom from government interference and the individual as autonomous moral agent are two account of autonomy which are particularly relevant to journalism.

Callahan states that autonomy 'should be a moral good, not a moral obsession. It is a value not the value.' (1984:42)

The growth of corporate dominance of the media i think had undermined traditional arguments in favor of press freedom as it is harder to mount these arguments to defend and institution that is simply meeting consumer demand for lively accounts of famous individuals private lives.

While many journalists seem to be taking a stand and deciding not to intrude on those within the public eye there are still many who see it as their right to know what is going on. I think it comes down to the choice or autonomy of the individual journalists. There has to be a will not to invade the privacy of others, of course you are still under some corporate structure but within this i think individual journalists can still have self limits and regulation they just have to want it.

JOURNALISM LAW:

Technically there are very few laws which apply exclusively to journalists.
As Walker 1989 demonstrated in her book The Law of Journalism in Australia there was indeed a body of law that could be deemed 'journalism law' in that it constituted all that legal implications that arose from the act of news reporting and publishing. Such laws could include:
- defamation
- court reporting
- contempt of court and parliament
- obscenity
- media regulation
- freedom of information legislation
- intellectual property
- trespass
- breach of confidences
among others.

Journalists have no rights beyond those of ordinary citizens, although they are given some special privileges in order to facilitates their role in bringing information to the wider citizenry.

They are also sometimes allowed privileged of withholding a name.

Public interest - judges and legislators with allow journalists certain privileges if it seems it is in the public interest to do so; if it is performing a greater public good by being allowed to continue.

Sub Justice: Publication interfering with an individuals right to a fair trail is known as 'sub justice' contempt, from the Latin meaning under a judge.

Freedom of Information: (FOI) Is a law designed to allow greater public access to information held by government departments.

Defamation Law: Each jurisdiction has a different body of defamation law.
Fair Report: is the standard defense relied on by journalists reporting on court and parliament. It stems from an absolute protection against defamation action afforded to anyone speaking in court of parliament and to any documents labeled tabled in those institutions known as 'absolute privileged'.
Fair Comment: offers protection to journalists who's writing involves the publication of an opinion about a public matter. This defense applies to commentaries such as editorial comments book reviews sports reviews and letters to the editor.

It is key to note that just because something may be interesting to the public does not mean it is in the public interest to hear about it. It is the journalists ethical obligation to report on public interest issues rather than appeal to society's overstimulated want for tabloid gossip.

Once again coming back to autonomy of a journalist.