In the Public Interest- Public v Private
(John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal at their home in Woy Woy)
This weeks topic was somewhat daunting for a future journalist such as myself. I learnt alot about the media industry from the presentations and reading this week. I know that by saying this I may seem very ignorant however prior to this topic I hadn't really thought hard about the legal and ethical concerns of being a journalist. I knew that they existed, but it just become so much more real when we began discussion about how we would handle particular ethical situations. This topic highlighted for me the battle I will have to face in the future between complying with Australian Law and fulfilling a commitment to the public as an information provider that will 'tell all'. I guess I never realised how intense the lifestyle of a journalist may actually be. We will have to be so careful when selecting facts and will have to consider how publishing private information about someone may effect their friends and families lives. In my first year of Communications I learnt about the role of a journalist and the expectations the public have. Journalist's have a duty to the public to provide them with news and information as it is in the public interest. I personally believe the public has a right to know private information about people if it is for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, however there has to be a limit on what information the public has access to and there has to be a means of determining what is classed as in the public's interest or not.
The media report on people everyday but it's the private information that is published about someone and particularly the photo's that are released, that become a legal or ethical issue here. I believe everyone has a right to privacy as well. This debate is so hard to argue because there are so many reasons to support each side. In cases such as corruption and criminal matters like child-sex offences it can be argued that the public deserve to be informed and told information like names and offence details. Another example is releasing private information of someone who is deceased. A journalist has to determine what is in the public interest and if the story is published, it will be justified to remove someone's right to privacy. If a wrong decision is made, they have to suffer the legal ramifications but also the criticisms from their peers and the public. This is what I found to be most daunting.
In the presentations this week some good arguements were made to support both sides of whose right is more important, the publics right to know or a persons right to privacy? An area that Sarah Sneeden chose to focus on in her presentation was Journalism and privacy within Australian law. She identified that there is no legal definition of journalism in Australia, which I thought, was very interesting, yet concerning. She also discussed the Australian Law Reform Commission’s recent interests in restricting a journalist’s capacity to report on private matters in the media and expressed her concerns about law reform giving authorities the power to determine what is classed as being in the public interest and what is not. It is a debate over whether it is important to protect citizen’s privacy or if it is more important to have ‘good’ journalism in place in which private information should legally be allowed to be published, as it would be the public interest. I do agree with her argument that only private matters reported on in the ‘news, current affairs and documentaries’ are in the public interest. The idea is that Journalists should be allowed to intrude in someone’s private life, but only if it occurs in the course of investigative journalism.
We watched a Media Watch episode called ‘What price privacy’. This was interesting as it demonstrated the way journalists currently intrude on celebrity’s private lives particularly to sell magazines and create gossip. Some journalists take advantage of information they receive and consider what story will sell papers and magazines more important than if it is even in the public's interest to publish the story or if it will take away someone's right to privacy. On another tangent, is it ok for the media to publish information about a celebrity or politicians private life because they give up their right to privacy when they agree to be in the public eye? How far is too far when chasing a story about a public figure. An example shown was a photo taken in the backyard of a public figure who was talking with his wife. The story published with it was about how he had recently cheated on his wife. Some students asked whether a celebs family and friends should be left out of the spotlight and have a right to privacy just like any other person. I definately feel like the media go too far to get a 'good story'. Climbing up to take a photo in someone's backyard to sell a story is definately invading someone's privacy. Even public figures deserve the privacy of their own home. I personally wouldn't want to go that far but I guess that I would only know when I'm working as a real life journalist. I guess they have to put their own ethical beliefs aside sometimes in order to have and keep a job in the media industry.
Another key point raised in class was how do journalists decide what is in the public interest. Sarah showed a clip from an SBS series called ‘Fine Line’ which discussed journalism and ethics. The main idea from the clip is that every situation a journalist faces requires a consideration of the consequences and the impact a story would have on society and specific individuals. Sarah provided an example of a decision made by journalist, Darren Hinch to tell the public private information about a priest that had been charged with child-sex offences. Ultimately the information shared with the public hindered the priests trial and Hinch was charged with contempt of court. This example demonstrates the issue of whose right is more important. The right to privacy or the right for a journalist to report the news for the public interest?
In cases such as these I argue that it is in the public interest to publish or broadcast information. I feel as though the public deserve to know if there is a man charged with being a paedophile still on the streets working with children. I understand that the man accused has a right to privacy and not have this information shared with the public until after he has been convicted in court but on the other hand if I was a mother, I wouldn’t want my kids near someone who has even allegedly done something like that. I hope Hinch wasn’t just trying to get ratings and that he genuinely was concerned for the public because I support his reasoning for broadcasting that information. I would feel obligated to tell the public something that could affect a large number of people. Is it then a question of the greatest good for the greatest number?
I personally believe that journalists have a duty to convey information and animate democracy yet they have a duty to prevent harm as well. Journalists uphold the right to freedom of expression and they have significant power as well but they should be held accountable for the decisions they make in whether to share private information with the public or not.
Here is a GREAT website that EVERYONE should read on this topic. It is an essay on the Australia Press Council website and it covers many tangents of this topic. It has an interesting section on celebrity and on trauma and greif reporting.
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/nov98/prize.html
Here is an interesting insight from a real life journalist about how he feels about invading people's privacy:
No comments:
Post a Comment