Week 7: The Media and Ethical Nature of Privacy

Are public figures like celebrities and politicians In the Australian democratic system, a dichotomous position exists regarding the right people have to privacy. As a collective society, strong value is placed on the expectation that citizens are entitled to privacy from the public disclosure of personal information. However a founding feature of the Australian media is the notion of “the freedom of the press” in order to heighten the citizenry’s awareness of the events impacting upon their own lives.

In terms of the current legal framework there is no Privacy Act protecting against invasions of personal privacy. Specific clauses exist in both the 1995 and 1999 Journalist Codes of Ethics. There are some areas legally requiring the protection of privacy, namely in court proceedings including prohibiting the naming of victims of sexual assault and children. Apart from these specified circumstances there is a firm presumption in favour of the press in reporting on private information.

The capitalist nature of news organisations means the media will inevitable print news items that make money. This process involves reporting the stories that audiences and readers find most appealing. I suppose that in the increasingly "info-tainment" focused contemporary media, it is unfortunate that what audiences deem as newsworthy has the potential to encrociate upon the private lives of celebrities and public figures.The general public is seemingly intrigued by the pitfalls and the trials and tribulations of public figures.

However does this justify journalistic practice merely because the public wishes to know things? This discussion reverts to the old "public interest" verses "things that interest the public" argument. There's no doubt that if a politician is neglectful in performing their parliamentary responsibilities because of some allegation in their personal life, it is fair and just for reporters to disseminate this information. For example in 2009, then NSW Health Minister's extra-marital affair was made public after he failed to fulfil his ministerial duty by pending time with his mistress, rather than attend the opening of a hospital. Alternatively, what about the 2010 gay sex club allegations exposed by the media about former NSW Transport Minister, David Campbell?

Personally I am unsure whether this should have been reported in the media. There is the old argument of "a man who is unfaithful to his wife will be unfaithful to his country." Similar to this, critics argue that his exposed private life was contrary to the "family man" ideals Campbell campaigned for in his electorate. Although unsure about the ethical nature of journalists in reporting on the event, I personally would reject the idea that Campbell is not a family man, and merely because he was unfaithful to his wife. One hidden aspect of his private life does not defy the political views Campbell held when he ran for office. Although I'm unsure about this news from an ethical standpoint, I can say that as a consumer of news i was intrigued and interested about the allegation.