Journalism and ethics have been described by some as contrasting ideas, and similarly the concept of ethics in the media has been depicted as an oxymoron because of the apparent hypocrisy of using lies to discover other deceits. This is because of the negative stigma attached to the attitude of the media and the industry behind it.
Journalists can be seen as cut-throat and immoral, driven by the competitive nature of their job. Abiding by the codes of conduct is not always the highest priority of some journalists. In spite of this, there is clearly a very strict ethic code that must be followed. Many journalists do follow this code religiously and it is their sole aim to write great articles or inform the public accurately of news and events.
Journalists must only publish work that meets all the criteria of the code which includes truth and accuracy, impartiality and diversity of opinion, editorial integrity and independence, serving the public interest, fairness, privacy, harm and offence, accountability and protection of children. Everyone has rights, and these rights help us to establish ourselves as free agents in the world. However not all rights are absolute, and there are some instances where the violation of these rights can be justified for the greater good.
In today's society, the subject of celebrity has become more talked about than ever before. With weekly magazines and papers sales increasing rapidly and the publics new found thirst for gossip, it seems those in the public eye have little choice but to give in to the media and be prepared to bare all. Whether to blame the celebrity or the media is hard to decide, but when the paparazzi’s favourite pop star is gallivanting through the streets of Hollywood wearing barely anything more than her porcelain fitted smile, you can hardly blame them. However, the media have played a huge role in creating this frenzy, the hype of certain public figures or celebrities always stems from what scandal makes the papers front page. Many politicians, singers, actors and models are highly sought after by the press because of their status in their industry and popularity within the public. However in desperation for fame, some people feel that in order to get the publicity they crave, they must put themselves in the public eye, kiss and tell stories are a good example of this. By putting forward their stories to the press, they are inviting the media in to analyze and scrutinise them, and create a ‘Faustian pact’ where they are happy to divulge information about themselves in order to secure their coverage by the media.
Whilst many people trying to encourage press attention, there are also many who try to avoid it. If a public figure tries to hide information about themselves that should be public knowledge or tries to cover up a corruption, we the public, have a right to the truth. It is a journalist’s job to uncover the truth and to inform the public, assuming that there is already sufficient evidence to justify the intrusion. Some people would argue that when exposing a corruption, the journalist is not really invading someone’s privacy as the information never belonged to them in the first place as well as the fact that other people had a right to this knowledge.
Despite all of this, not everyone in the public eye has volunteered themselves for such intrusions. Victims of disasters, Criminals, relatives of public figures for example have been thrust into the mercy of the media without consent. In these cases the journalist should make sure they are respectful of their rights to privacy. As long as a journalist follows the ethic code there should not be any issues involving the mistreatment of those that do not wish to be in the public eye, unfortunately this is not always the case.
So where do we draw the line? should there be rules to determine how far the media can invade ones privacy? Public figure or not, everyone has equal rights, rights to privacy and rights not to be violated, nobody should be treated differently. It would seem that because there is a demand from the public, the press feel it is somehow their duty to supply this demand. Nevertheless, this is not a valid justification for the invasion of ones privacy or rights. To evaluate whether Public figures have rights to privacy which journalists should respect, we need to first define what the rights of privacy entail and whether there is ever a justified reason for violation of these rights.
Philosopher W.A.Parent states that privacy is,‘the condition of not having undocumented personal knowledge about one possessed by others. A person’s privacy is diminished exactly to the degree that others possess this kind of information about him.’ Parents approach to privacy supports the view that the main purpose of our privacy is to prevent other social groups controlling us by using our personal information as a weapon. Privacy rights appear to be an extension of property rights according to Parent, however he does not take into account the idea that we may conduct private affairs in public areas, Parent also assumes all private issues are in some way a weakness and can and will be used to others advantage. This is untrue, there is no reason why we cannot have personal issues we wish to keep private for our own explanations, such as a married couple are not ashamed of their sex life, however they may not wish to share this experience with anyone else as it is intimate and between them. Some may argue that privacy is not just the exposure of personal information, but also the invasion of certain ‘zones’ in our lives, such as personal relationships, our personal space, our activities or business. Matthew Kieran, media ethics expert and author supports this view and argues for the importance of privacy because,‘We consider privacy to be intrinsically valuable since it allows for intimacy and thus the space within which certain personal activities, relationships, and goods can flourish.’
Privacy is an essential part of our personal development, without it we would not have to room to explore and discover new areas of our lives and relationships that we may not be ready to expose to others yet. Moral philosopher James Rachels', claims that it is crucial for the growth of a personal friendship that there is an aspect of privacy between the two people to share issues between themselves which they can bond over. It is because of this bond that we feel our relationships are intimate, and much needed friendships can progress. For those in the public eye, it is almost more important that they have a support system of friends as they work in such high pressured environments, which can put strain on their mental well-being. However without their right to privacy, it becomes hard to form the kinds of connections between friends that civilians can. James Rachels, an ethics specialist, states that‘ if we cannot control who has access to us, sometimes including and sometimes excluding various people, then we cannot control the patterns of behaviour we adopt… or the kinds of relations with other people that we will have’
Wrongly made accusations and slander can impinge on our capacity to pursue valuable private goals, people may become prejudiced against someone because of a private issue that has been exposed. The right to privacy is there to protect us from false allegations and to allow us to prosper. However, if a deceit is discovered about someone in the public eye, does this immediately justify its disclosure? Many public figures have had truths about their personal lives revealed in the press. These revelations may have no connection at all to how they conduct themselves in their work, it seems unfair that many civilians can live immoral personal lives and still go to work without the fear of condemnation from their colleagues or the public. The allegations brought up about public figures are generally totally irrelevant, such as issues in their marriage or how they spend their free time. Nevertheless, it is understandable that if the public have made a democratic vote to put someone in power they should be informed if that person is not fulfilling promises to them or is involved in any corrupt doings.
What is reasonable privacy should be based on the persons position and lifestyle. At what point does the public interest override reasonable privacy rights. When regarding rights to privacy there are many different ideas of what counts as private and what rights we may have to violate other rights. Thomas Scanlon, Harvard philosopher, explains that there are privacy ‘norms’ and also social rules that we automatically follow, these social rules could be acts such as not going through someone’s belongings or not staring through peoples windows. As the examples get more extreme, such as reading other peoples mail or stalking, there are laws set in place to protect our rights. Whether we are civilians or public figures we should all have the same rights, the rights of those in the public eye seem to have become neglected by the media as the stakes get higher and the paycheques larger.
It is quite clear that at times the press goes a lot further than they know they should when trying to get that million dollar picture or headline. The society we live in has proven that whilst fame is a virtue, it is also a burden at the same time and it seems those in the spotlight are paying the price for it. Journalism is more competitive than ever and it seems journalists will go to extreme lengths to get their story. The death of Princess Diana is a perfect example of when things may have gone too far. The media appear to have been the number one culprit to the cause of the car crash that Princess Diana died in. The paparazzi seemingly caused her driver to race off at an illegal speed to try to protect the Princess’s privacy, and ultimately this concluded with her death. Other examples such as the coverage of Prince Harry’s location in the army could have been life threatening for him and his troops. Exposure and other violations from the media can be the cause of great chaos, some things are kept hidden for a reason and it is not a journalist’s job to disclose private information, only to inform the public on a need to know basis. There has been a shift in the way journalism is being projected and although it is the public’s interest in certain events, it is the responsibility of the media to cater to this whilst still attaining their reliability. The media need the public to trust them as Kieran points out, ‘If the public do not trust the media’s reports…then reliable news coverage is difficult to achieve.’
The public have become weary of the press and have lost some of their respect for certain aspects of the media, such a reality television shows, or papers filled with kiss and tell stories or deceitful documentaries. This is all because the media have overstepped the mark, on more than one occasion and the public have become very aware of this, as have the celebrities.
Journalists should have respect for public figures rights to privacy, or anyone’s right to privacy for that matter. The public need to know information that is informative, accurate, truthful and relevant. Private issues or personal information about those in the limelight is in no way significant. This violation of ones personal life clearly goes against the ethical codes that journalists must obey. Not only does it go against the journalist’s specific code of conduct, it also goes against our own moral integrity and social codes that we have been taught from a young age. There is no excuse for a journalist to uncover personal truths about a public figure unless the public have a right to know. Public figures, like civilians, have a right to privacy and nobody, journalist or otherwise, has the right to violate them.
Bibliography
Kieran, Matthew. ‘Media Ethics’, a Philosophical Approach, page 65,75. (Praeger Publishers September 30, 1997)
Parent, W.A. ‘Privacy, Morality and the Law’ in Philosophical issues in Journalism, page 92, ed. Elliot D.Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press)
Rachels, James. ‘Why Privacy is Important’ in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy, page 296. ed.Ferdinand D.Schoeman (New York: Cambridge University Press,1984)
No comments:
Post a Comment