The news values are structured so that what ever is current, timely, personable, within proximity, personality/celebrity based, interesting or even ground breaking makes news. Within these news values lies stories that can injure or bring forth issues that are apart of someone's privacy. Journalism is a profession based on hard research, that may take on unusual forms to get to the heart of an issue, or an underlying facet that can be brought to light to discredit or shame someone.
The AJA Code of Ethics states that journalists "do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability." In light of these recommendations, why do some stories still go ahead when there are clear privacy issues prevalent?
It's in the public's interest. This is the reasoning behind many stories that contain breaches of privacy. Journalists and media organisations can throw weight behind a story that involves research and footage that brings forth unsavoury personal information.
An example of this is NSW's former Transport Minister David Campbell who was forced to resign after Channel Seven ran a story earlier in the year that showed Mr Campbell leaving a gay club in a Ministerial car. Channel Seven attempted to defend their expose by saying that it was run in the best interest of the public as Campbell was not living up to the reputation of a state minister. He was accused of abusing his car privileges (it came out later that it was within his right to use the car for personal matters) and misleading his electorate.
This is an example of ignored privacy and unethical practice. It is within the best interests of each journalism in the field or studying to enter the field that not only can the reputation of the subject be seriously damaged but so can the author. Simply writing up the saucy story that underlies many problems within the fabric of ethics is not writing to be celebrated but rather frowned upon and thrown into the rubbish bin.
Interestingly enough Jenna, I used the example of David Campbell in my entry this week! The question of what is public interest is becoming increasingly sketchy and I think this is a good case of how the unveiling of a persons private life has ruined his career, his family and his reputation.
ReplyDeleteA key issue is this: do public people deserve the basic rights to privacy and to have a life away from the spotlight? I think they do.
Unless the individual's private actions are affecting their public life and the way they perform their professional duties, then I say hands off!