public vs. private

Where do we draw the proverbial line in the sand when it comes the matter of public interest (NOT interesting to the public – journalists need to be really careful there) verse an individuals right to privacy? Journalists need to tread carefully when writing about matters that may be very private to certain individuals.

But how can we define privacy? David Archard reckons that there is a distinct line between loss of control of personal information and then an out and out loss of privacy – he believes that privacy is only invaded when the information is made available to a larger third, party. So I guess this where journalists would need to use their moral compasses in order to determine whether or not they should release private information to the general public. The justification of the ‘public interest’ is often used here, although a lot of the time, the information seems to be more interesting to the public – and for that matter, who decides what is in the public interest?

Was it in the public interest for the Daily Telegraph to publish photographs of Senator Robert Woods and his wife having a strained conversation in their backyard (the photo was taken with a long lens camera after Senator Woods’ affair had been revealed)? I don’t think this could possibly be justified. Invasions into politician’s private lives can only be justified if their private activities impede upon their ability in public office.

However, Andrew Belsey argues that a public person’s claim to privacy is no more than a presumption, that their privacy can never truly be violated because they gave it up when they entered public life. I don’t agree with Belsey at all. Privacy should be a universal right afforded to everybody, regardless of public status. Journalists need to recognise this and perhaps become more ethical in the way they report upon private matters. Yes, putting a photo of a dead body on the front page may sell more papers, but we need to think about the implications which this has for other factors involved (such as families and reputations). It just seems a bit shady and dirty to me, like a trick that further cheapens the already tarnished image of journalism.

Oh and you can have a look at the Australian Press Council's Privacy standards here: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/priv_stand.html