What’s the difference for journalists between the public interest and something that simply interests the public? Please illustrate your answer with examples.
Public interest is a concept that can be defined in several ways. However, there is a formal meaning wherein the public interest is viewed as the objective of the authorized organs of government. Embracing defence, health, education, and sanitation and police protection can be envisaged as the public interest.
On the other hand, something that simply interests the public is something that we are merely curious.
Public interest
For journalists, there are issues which are in the public interest but which the public does not find very interesting and curious. Equally, there are stories which interest the public but lack the potential to impact the reader in any meaningful way.
In simple terms, the public interest is about the common good, the general welfare, the well-being and what matters to everyone in the society. Public interest entails issues that affect every citizen regardless of their class, age, sex or level of education even if they are not aware of it or don’t care. It is usually clear for journalists what is and what is not in the public interest, but sometimes it can be a complicated question when it comes to issues regarding privacy. It is therefore essential to apply a public interest test. The first step is to differentiate public interest issues and the things that interest members of the public. For example, many people might be curious about celebrities, footballers, popular culture and exhibit less interest in realities of the society like education and health, which are critical for the public. The public’s interest in something doesn’t necessarily mean that it is in the public interest.
Areas considered to be of public interest include protection of public health, safety and environment, crime and social behaviours, misuse of public office, improper use of public money, socioeconomic and political topics. A journalist may publish information when it serves greater value and is used to discuss matters of public interest.
For journalists, the decision on whether to publish information about a public figure or a private person will entirely depend on the circumstances of the case. Journalists are, therefore tasked with the responsibility of applying the public interest tests and balancing the strengths of considerations in favour and against disclosure. In determining the public interest, the journalist should decide if the news report is capable of productively contributing to a debate of general interest.
In the UK, journalism plays a significant role in providing information to people to allow them to take part in the democratic process. A journalist must hold government institutions accountable for their actions. However, they must behave ethically and abide by the public service ethic to win the trust of the public. They should be open, honest and transparent about their identities. It involves always introducing themselves by their real name and stating what organizations and news channels they work for. However, in some circumstances, a journalist may be required to hide his/her identity to expose wrongdoing. Such scenarios of deception should be avoided, but can only be justified if it is in the greater good of the public. This is a public justification made by a journalist, that, “it is in the public’s interests,” a conception that underscores the moral authority of journalism to invade the privacy of others or discover the truth.
Deciding what is in the public interest and what merely interest the public
In the case of Erla Hlynsdottir, a journalist reported that the director of a Christian Rehabilitation Center and his wife had been involved with sex games with patients at the facility. Reporting about such allegations cannot be merely construed as informing the public of the private lives of others but contributes to matters of public interest.
The privacy test
Privacy is a very crucial test of ethical journalism and the public interest.
The Private lives of public figures
In normal circumstances, journalist ought not to intrude into the private lives of people. However, there might be necessities for doing so if the public figure in question is behaving differently in private from what he advocates in public. People who are public figures like, police officers, politicians, cooperate leaders or any persons who rely on their public image for their livelihood, their private lives can have a massive impact on their general duties. People’s private homes have, in recent times, become a target for social media outlets. Details of the public figure’s lives contribute to sales in media outlets.
When reporting matters concerning private aspects of life, a journalist should observe the role of the concerned person and the nature of the activities of the news report. An individual will enjoy a more or less restricted right to their intimacy depending on whether they hold official office.
Politicians in the UK have the lowest expectation of privacy since their political office exposes them to the attention of the public. Specific private actions of public figures cannot be regarded as private due to their impact on the political sphere. For example, an arrest of a well-known public figure, who might be considered as a role model for young people, possession and use of illegal drugs, is more likely to be considered a matter of public interest. However, a journalist should respect the privacy of public figures when they participate and engage in sports activities, when vacationing or in their intimate and marital affairs.
In this case, the intrusion of the media will expose dishonesty and hypocrisy of the public figure, for example, a politician. However, such intrusion must be justified to bring about the greater good of the public in terms of public interest. The reasons for any intrusion must be publicly stated and linked to the broader public interest.
It can be complicated when the situation involves a journalist breaking the law of encouraging someone else to break the law on his/her behalf. The UK, for example, has incorporated the public interest into its legal system. An act of parliament protects whistle-blowers who expose wrongdoings in their places of work.
On 30th January 2001, a beautiful woman left a building in Chelsea, talked to some friends and walked down the street. The Daily Mirror’s decision to publish that picture of supermodel Naomi Campbell outside a Narcotics Anonymous meeting proved to be an essential legal development relating to privacy. Campbell alleged that the photos posted of her exit from a Narcotics Anonymous meeting was a breach of her privacy and won on final appeal, and awarded damages.
Exactly six months before Campbell was pictured walking out of that building in West London, another development regarding privacy took place in East London. On 14th July 2000, several strangers ran around a house naked for the benefit of the first series of Big Brother broadcast on Channel 4 in 2000. This incident helped to redefine the twenty-first-century approach to privacy as this was a new generation who had no issues living their lives publicly showcasing every aspect of their lives.
On 14th July 2005, the Daily Mirror published a photo of J.K Rowling’s house in London and named the street which the house was situated. Ms Rowling complained that the article published by the media outlet provided sufficient information to identify the exact location of her property. Thus she was concerned about threats made against her in the past. The Daily Mirror, argued that the address had already been published in another paper and could be identified as the owner from the land registry, information which was already in public domain. The press complaints commission acknowledged the security risks associated with famous individuals and found the Daily Mirror in breach of the privacy clause in the Code of Practice.
Private individuals
Private individuals, not in the public domain, enjoy more excellent protection of their right to privacy. However, some of their actions may contribute to their involvement in the public sphere and prompt journalist to report on them. In some scenarios, journalists may report private individuals in publications and matters of public interest. A private individual, who involves himself in controversy, cannot expect to be accorded absolute privacy. For example, journalists are allowed to name individuals engaging in prostitution or illegal violations like human trafficking. By choosing to undertake in highly controversial businesses, private individuals enter the public domain and open themselves for scrutiny from the media and journalists.
An incident where the floor collapsed during a wedding in Jerusalem raised concerns about the privacy of the injured and the respect of those who passed away. It is debatable whether it is sufficient to show the scenes leading to the event, rather than the event itself. Concerning public interest, the public would like to know the scale of loss of life and who bears the fault for inadequate building since the collapsing of the floor resulted in injuries and loss of life.
In July 2008, a case was decided in the High Court of London which summed up the tension between private and public life. Max Mosley, president of the Formula one Association successfully sued the News of the World for breaching his privacy by reporting an orgy which the newspaper claimed included Nazi role-playing. At the heart of the case were the nature of private life and what character and behaviour warrants intrusion by the media. Moreover, the nature of public interest and how far is it different from what interests the public. In this case, the justification used by News of the World for its investigation stemmed from the perceived importance of Mosley’s role and the fact that he was elected to it.
The legal manager at News International argued that “Mosley was elected five times since 1992 as head of the FIA (Federation International de l’ Automobile), a global organization. The FIA runs motorsport around the world, which puts him as an essential figure. Some journalists argue that if an individual puts himself or herself into the public domain, they should expect scrutiny of their private life.
The impact test
One way of examining whether there is a public interest in a specific work of journalism is evaluating what the impact of the public will be. It is essential to ascertain how publications can affect people and whether the wider population will benefit from the publication. If a particular publication is perceived by the public to lack the interest of the public, it can damage the reputation of journalist and their media stations.
An interesting example in the UK concerned actions of a tabloid newspaper which published pictures, names and addresses of known pedophiles as part of a “name and shame” campaign. It was soon cut short after protests from the public over whether the broader public interest was served by risking these individuals’ lives.
The decision on public interest needs to be addressed at the highest level, for example, by the editor or the highest authority in the organization. Publications should promote the well-being and safety of the public. Moreover, it should raise public awareness of critical issues and contribute significantly towards fostering ethical conduct in public life.
The public interest tests outlined here can enable journalists to resolve difficult ethical dilemmas. Openness can preserve their integrity and maintain their moral balance when they can justify acting in the public interest.
Privacy
The US Supreme Court Justice, Louise Brandeis famously described privacy as “the right to be left alone.” The intrusion of privacy by journalists dates back to the birth of the press. However, from the late 1980s, complaints grew over a more aggressive journalist style. The 1970s and 1980s were married with press scandals, from the Queen to entertainers such as Elton John, actor Gorden Kaye and several politicians found themselves in the wrong end of the lens. Kaye had sustained injuries in a car accident in January 1990, while in hospital, he was interviewed by Sunday Sport and failed in his bid to prevent the publishing of the story.
There is, however, a changing idea of what privacy is and where its boundaries lie. “It is what happens behind closed doors,” as Mark Frith argues, or “walking down the streets,” as Naomi Campbell and the author of Harry Potter books J.K. Rowling have argued.
Moreover, children below the age of 18 years should be protected, and their rights to privacy upheld. For example, Ofcom found against channel 4 filming a young person during a documentary about child smokers. The child said that he was 16 when, in fact, he was 14. By asking the child his age, Ofcom ruled that the program had asked him a question of personal nature which required parental consent despite the public’s interest argument about child smoking. There can be occasions where a breach of the code is justified. Journalist Nick Davies gives an example of interviewing children who were working as prostitutes in Nottingham. He expresses that a journalist should have the moral right to decide whether breaking rules is justified in pursuit of higher goals; in this case, the revelation of a scandal.
Furthermore, while politician’s children may have a right to privacy, this is overruled when private activity sits against public statements. In the case of Euan Blair, who was found drunk in Leicester Square and given Tony Blair’s tough talk on drunks, children, in those circumstances are fair game despite it being cruel.
Conclusion
Responsible journalism entails acting in good faith and collecting and publishing information in line with the journalist’s ethics rather than collecting information by harassing and intruding into private lives of individuals to satisfy the curiosity of the public.
As discussed, a journalist should be mindful of how they treat and publish information regarding well-known persons. Publishing information concerning the private lives of individuals without their consent infringes upon their privacy. Moreover, such commentaries and photos do not contribute to a debate of public interests but merely raises the curiosity of the general public. Journalists ought to respect the law and abide by ethics and practices while reporting news and should proceed with caution in situations that result in a breach of regulations. However, law-breaking can be justified where the interest of the public outweighs the duty to follow and obey ordinary laws.
A journalist is encouraged to adhere to codes of conduct and self-regulatory tools which comprise media users’ association, experts from the academic world, judges and publishers contributing to the ethical practice of journalism.