The issue discussed in class this week is one that all Journalists will encounter at some point in their career. To write or not to write? Do we risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy,' writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Wittle said.
As an example of this battle Tom Stott discussed hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Heated discussion followed this example, with half the class advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported - and half the class declaring the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their status.
Stott stated that 'Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people'
Applying this statement to celebrity it would appear that their private lives are, in fact, not at all in the public interest. However they will remain at the forefront of the news whether quality journalists approve or not. This is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Having presented on the same topic last week, I think you did a great job at covering the important facts about privacy in journalism.
ReplyDeleteYou quoted Tom when he said "information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people".
I used the same argument, stating that, unless a public figure's private life directly affects their public roles, there is no need for an invasion of privacy.
I used Della Bosca as my example and said that if he had actually purposely missed his plane to see his media-savvy mistress, then the public would REALLY have something to complain about.
Hence, as I concluded in my presentation, journalists must find a balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This cannot however occur in a vacuum, but rather in context.
A bit of a utopian vision, but one that will improve the standards of journalism worldwide.
Lilen