This ethical explainer is going to cover the issue of privacy, and specifically journalists who do not respect the privacy of others, and create news stories with only the intention to produce ‘good news’ and to benefit themselves and their career, without the thought of other people’s privacy and reputation. It will discuss the ethics behind privacy, and the boundaries journalists have set for them by government acts and codes, from both Australia and Great Britain, as the case that is used as an example took place in England.
Privacy is defined as the state of being free from public attention and US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis famously described privacy as ‘the right to be left alone’. Australia’s privacy act of 1988 regulates how personal information is handled, whether it be information or an opinion, whether true or not, about an identified individual. It acknowledges the competing rights of free expression and protection of personal information. This means that any person who has any kind of reputation or is somewhat known to the public has the right to express themselves freely, and not allow anyone else to use personal information about themselves unless they have consented and will benefit from it.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) has a journalist code of ethics, which states that respect for truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Claus 11 of this code states that all journalists must “Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.” The overall statement of the code of ethics states that MEAA members who practice journalism must commit themselves to honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. All of the traits listed are supportive of the privacy act in Australia, and when journalists follow the code they are in turn practicing ethical journalism.
According to the OAIC, Key issues practitioners need to be aware of when discussing and approaching privacy are organised into five parts. Initially, journalists need to put into consideration the personal information privacy of the person they are reporting about, then they need to be aware of the way they collect personal information, how they deal with it, the overall integrity of the personal information, and finally, access to, and correction of, personal information to the public and their audience.
An example of a breach of privacy is the Cliff Richard vs BBC case. Richard originally sued the South Yorkshire Police in 2014, and then later the BBC in privacy and under the Data Protection Act for publicly disclosing information and covering the search in various broadcasts about the fact that he was under investigation for alleged sexu
al offences involving a minor. He claimed that these claims caused him great personal distress, was damaging to his reputation and had an adverse impact on his life.
The local code of ethics for the Cliff Richard case is the National union of Journalists code of conduct. Journalists within the code do nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest. This is similar to Australia’s MEAA code, although The Great Britain code states that intrusion of privacy is not ok unless it is justified, and in Australia it can never be justified.
After the judgement of the case, the NUJ called for an urgent review, as it could of jeopardized journalist’s rights to report criminal investigations and name the person under investigation. This brings up the question about whether it is actually ethical to trigger debate over another person’s private life, no matter how famous. Is it a journalist’s right to report any story that will help to grow his or her reputation, even if it means to jeopardize someone else’s privacy, reputation and career?
Cliff Richard won his privacy case against the BBC and was eventually awarded an initial payment of £210,000 in damages, and then after the urgent review called for by the NUJ, Richard was awarded £190,000 in damages. Later, the singer was awarded a further £20,000 in aggravated damages for the decision the BBC made to nominate the story for a ‘scoop of the year’ award for the Royal Television Society.
Elly Moore 6424326
Elly Moore 