Privacy vs. Public Interest

Privacy is still a major concern for the journalism profession today. With technology advancing everyday, it is becoming easier for journalists to gain information in order to report on the personal lives of both celebrities and members of the general public.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) state that “respect for the truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism,” (MEAA Code of Ethics).

With this being said, what can be defined as public interest, and, even if it is released on the grounds that the public wants to know, does it make it ethical?

One such instance was the report on former Transport Minister David Campbell. Video footage and still images were displayed showing the Minister leaving a gay club in a Government vehicle.

Campbell chose to present himself as a family man due to the Government job he was placed in. However, this was proven to be a misrepresentation of himself to the public. According to Peter Meakin, his secret gay lifestyle was “at odds with his persona,” and evidently if he lied about his personal life, what else may he have lied about.

This was shown to the public and was later said to have been released to the public on the grounds that it was in the “public’s interest” to know. However, it is hard to draw the line in cases like this between what is publicly relevant and what is purely an invasion of privacy.

I guess when it comes to making decisions on what is published, journalists need to really consider what is public interest and what could and should remain private.

Freedom of the press.

Between 2005 and 2011, News of the World has been a part of a phone hacking scandal which ultimately bought to question the freedom of the press. It was discovered that private phone conversations and messages between members or the royal family, celebrities and members of the general public were being hacked by the organisation in order for them to gain news stories.

As a result, the publication was shut down and the case brought about many implications for journalists across the globe. However, when it comes to the freedom of the press, there are more factors to consider aside from phone hacking. There is the issue of content being influenced advertisers. There is always the issue that those companies who contribute money to publications will have an influence on the content produced by said publications.

However, with the advancement in technology, it has become far harder to keep personal information private. With satellite TV, newspapers, internet based blogs and social networking sites, more and more private information is being made public. So the question on everyone’s lips is, if twitter and facebook users are publishing personal information on their own sites, is it ethical for that information to be used by journalists? 

Wikileaks: good or bad?

Wikileaks was created on the notion that people have the right to know information and express their own opinions. Wikileaks provides people with a forum that allows them to seek information that is otherwise unavailable to be accessed through traditional media sources.

They state that they have “sustained and triumphed aginst legal and political attacks designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of freedom speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history.” (Wikileaks, 2011).

As Wikileaks is a not for profit organisation, this means that they are the more objective news forum, as opposed to some mainstream forums that often publish news that satisfies their financial backers. Documents published from Wikileaks contain links to the original source, thus allowing the audience to analyse and come to their own conclusions regarding the topic in question. However, the organisation does have a ‘harm minimisation procedure’, which means that any information that could put people at risk can be hidden from the public or removed entirely from the site. Thus the question remains; can Wikileaks truly be labelled a transparent publication when they possess the ability to alter their information?

This video gives some insight into transparency and trust issues when it comes to Wikileaks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J32DWlI6keI

In conclusion, it is safe to say that there are some news stories posted by Wikileaks that are relevant and that society should know about, however, it is necessary that the public knows that Wikileaks should not be a replacement for mainstream media and the matter of their transparency is still in question.

References:

Wikileaks. (2011). Wikileaks. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://wikileaks.org/