Public Vs Private Interest

According to the BBC, “there is no single definition of public interest.” Rather, the types of stories that fall into this category are, “exposing or detecting crime, exposing significantly anti-social behaviour and exposing corruption, or injustice” just to name a few. This categorisation raises the question of whether there is a difference between the respect for privacy owed to public figures, and that owed to private people. For public figures, the argument surrounds whether or not there is an entitlement to privacy, as well as whether the loss of privacy serves the public interest. For private people, the argument is simply based around whether or not the press should report their stories. If this categorisation is the accepted basis for determining the boundary for public versus private interest, there is no discernible difference between the respect for privacy owed to public figures and that owed to private people.

When it comes to reporting stories, it is a journalist’s role “to let people know what is going on in the world around them, so that they can make their own decisions about what to think, do, or say.” However, the major problem that arises is the potential for conflict between the public’s right to know and the individual’s right to privacy. This is despite, as Andrew Belsey points out in his article, “Privacy, publicity and politics” “Clearly, we live in a society that values personal privacy, and is concerned about intrusions into privacy from whatever source, including the media.” Belsey’s statement is an interesting one, because of the notion that a person is only in the public eye while they are in public places. However, this argument falls down when it comes to public figures, including politicians and celebrities. As David Archard points out in his article “Privacy, the public interest and a prurient public” it is the belief of Warren and Brandes, who wrote an article containing the disability of a congressman, “that somebody who enters public life thereby rightly loses a right to privacy.” Archard also brings in the notion that, “to become a public person is to undergo a change in one’s status, associated with which is a lesser degree of privacy.” However, he is against this notion because of the underlying concept that, although public figures only complain when the publicity is bad, a breach of privacy has occurred. On the other side of the argument is Belsey, who states that “we live in a society that thrives on publicity.” An example of this is Senator Bob Woods, who along with his wife, was photographed, using a long lens camera, in the backyard of their Sydney home. This photo sparked a huge debate as to whether the photo was in the public interest. Sally White, co-author of the book “Ethics and The Australian News Media”, believed it was not. She states on “The Media Report, “I am not totally convinced that taking a photograph without the subjects consent, when in fact the photograph does not contribute to anything other than voyeurism really, a picture of a husband and his wife. And, I don’t really think that it adds anything to the public’s right to know.” On the other side of this argument, is Barry Porter, who at the time was the Deputy National President of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. He states on “The Media Report,” that the photo, “adds a human dimension to the whole business. The Senator and his wife at home, and here are the people whose names are in the copy alongside the picture. It adds to the story.” In other words, Porter does not believe that there was an invasion of privacy. In addition, there is the argument that it is left to the editor to decide whether or not to run the story, which links back to the idea of there being no clear definition of public interest. In this context, it is arguable that the photograph may add to the public’s perception of a public figure. However, it is a subjective judgement which suggests that public figures are entitled to less privacy then private individuals. As the situation does not fit into any of the public interest categories, it is considered that the Woods’ privacy was inappropriately invaded.

The second argument surrounding the loss of privacy, deals with the fact that it serves the public interest. In this vein, Andrew Belsey states “the right to privacy is no more than a presumption, although an important one.” What Belsey means, is that claiming a justifiable reason for invasion of privacy does not exist. Thus, in terms of Senator Bob Woods, the fact that his extra marital affair was exposed in the press was not an invasion of privacy, because as Belsey states, “scandalous behaviour of this nature cannot legitimately claim the protection of privacy.” This is because of the notion that public figures make important decisions about the way in which we live. However, the question still arises as to whether the public needs to know about such an affair. David Archard, on the other hand, believes that the information does not serve the public interest, unless a crime has been committed. However, despite this, there are reasons as to why it is believed to be in the public interest. The first of these, as Archard states, is that “any kind of private immorality disqualifies a person from public office.” In this instance, the public believe that a politician is not fit to be a Minister, because of the fact that he or she needs an untarnished character. However, as Archard believes, this is taking matters too far as nobody is perfect and nobody should have to be absolutely perfect. The second example he puts forward, is the notion of hypocrisy, whether it be family, or other political matters. One example of this is the controversy surrounding the release of Cheryl Kernot’s book, “Speaking For Myself Again,” in which, Kernot explains everything about her defection to the ALP, except for the fact that she was having an affair with Gareth Evans, according to senior political editor for Channel 9, Laurie Oaks, in his Bulletin article, entitled, “Secrets and Lies.” Oaks eventually broke his accusation on “A Current Affair” in 2002, because he believed that the affair was an essential part of her career, which Kernot left out of her book. In his article, he states, “an honest book would have included Kernot’s biggest secret.” This therefore, begs the question of what is actually in the public interest. As Kernot explained on “The Media Report” in 2002, “I haven’t left out anything that’s important to the reasons why I joined the Labor Party and the consequences thereafter.” Kernot’s argument is a particularly important one, because again, revelation of the fact that she had an affair does not serve the public interest. Once again, the decision of Laurie Oaks is a subjective one, based on a presumption that the public would have an improved perception of Cheryl Kernot, through knowledge of the affair.

On the other side of those in the public eye, are those who, against their will, have found themselves in the spotlight. This includes both the families of those in the public eye, and those who have become public figures as a result of being a survivor of a disaster, or the winner of the lottery. As a result, there is a huge debate as to whether or not their stories should be made public. Andrew Belsey believes that they should. He states, “to the extent that the events that these members are involved in, there is no reason why the press should not seek to report them.” He also states that, “the circulation of general-interest information is a reasonable and legitimate activity of the media.” Belsey’s point of view is worth taking into account, as there are definitely stories that fit into the mould of public interest. For example, the remarkable landing of a plane by “Sully” Sullenberger in the Hudson River earlier this year without a single fatality after the plane he was flying was struck by birds,. However, in the same vein, there is an argument as to whether the media should report on tragic events. An example of this is the Virginia Tech shootings. Washington and Lee journalism Professor Edward Wasserman believes that after these incidents, the media should keep out. This is because he believes that the media, by reporting on the issue, could make it harder for the relatives to recover. Wasserman’s view is certainly an interesting one, as the reporting of tragic incidents could indeed slow down the recovery time as continual publicity could affect the perception of a community throughout the rest of the world. It is the argument of whether or not the media can intrude into the grief of relatives. In these instances, it is more the case that the public will be interested rather than it being in the public interest. The privacy of individuals is invaded, as a consequence.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oz2CZgrm8k ) This video provides an interesting aspect of what the FBI is claiming they need in order to make sure terrorist attacks like 9/11 don't happen again.  The powers they want are an invasion of privacy.