Week 7: Privacy - Where do you get it?

The seminar presentation for this week focused on the issue of privacy within the journalism industry, and the ethical dilemma that surrounds it in relation to what is and is not in the public interest. One of the presenters, Madeline Leitch suggested that the division over what is considered ethical has come about as a result of it no clear cut definition.

The recent case that was discussed during the presentation, which involved former transport minister David Campbell, is an interesting example of the journalism industry going beyond ethical boundaries. There should be no doubt that Campbell's gay club visits came to the public's attention for no other reason than to sell newspapers and make a profit. As was pointed out in the seminar, the media has played on the public's interest in a scandal. Arguments for the release of such information centred on the public having the right to know that their tax-paying dollars were being used for Campbell to drive to and from the gay clubs. But it has since been revealed that he had the right to drive the government-owned car for his own private use.

However, media lawyer Justin Quill points out that, "you hear a lot of people talking about privacy...but unless their talking about some moral right to privacy, they're talking about something that doesn't exist in this country." He's right of course, as was shown in the media following Campbell, which leads me back to defining question of this week. Where do you get privacy? Evidently, privacy is something which is acknowledged, but not respected.

Though many believe that celebrities such as Lindsey Lohan, Madonna and even Campbell (a representative of the government), are in the public eye and therefore deserve no privacy, ordinary members of the public are given the same treatment. The best example that comes to mind was the Victorian bushfires, where reporters chose to shove a microphone into the face of shocked and emotional survivors, instead of allowing them to grieve privately and come to terms with the disaster that had literally just unfolded. However, it could be argued that this is a naive perspective, and that the journalism industry flourishes through images of emotion and carnage. Herein lies the problem. As a result of there being no clear definitions or outline of ethical boundaries, many journalists feel inclined to simply do whatever it takes to get a story, regardless of the effects that it has on the lives of those they interview.