FREE ESSAY ON MR

MR

What responsibility does the press have in keeping the public informed while at the same
time, respecting the privacy and sensibility of individuals?
The press has the power to influence virtually all areas of our lives. Words and images
are combined to produce various messages and meanings. All that is presented to us
undoubtedly has an effect; whether it be positive, negative or neutral. In some countries
the press is seen as an instrument for exposing the truth, and in others it is seen as an
obstacle to the truth and a mechanism for propaganda.
The Press Council is an industry-funded body designed to ensure journalistic standards
and to deal with complaints concerning the press. The body does not have any power to
enforce punishment on those who do not comply with the set standards. The Council relies
on voluntary adherence to the standards and the admission of mistakes publicly. 
It is virtually impossible for the press, in all situations to follow all principles set
out by the Press Council. Press Council Principle No. 3 states that readers of
publications are entitled to have news and comments presented to them honestly and fairly
and with the respect for the privacy and sensibility of individuals. It further states
that the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or
obvious of significant public interest. Rumour and unconfirmed reports if published
should be identified as such. In theory, Press Council Principle No. 3 has good
intentions, but can it really be taken into account in all situations? Definitely not.
The balance between the public's 'right to know' and the right of an individual's privacy
is extremely delicate. 
Hurst and White (1994) state that to a member of the public, intrusion into privacy can
be seen as unethical conduct, irrespective of the status of the person whose privacy has
been violated. To a journalist, intrusions are often ethically justified because a
particular case appeals to the more potent principle of the public's right to know.
Andrew Belsey (1992) makes three distinctions between people and their right to privacy
in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media.
It may be the responsibility of the press to keep the public informed while at the same
time respecting the privacy and sensibility of individuals, but should all individuals be
shown the same respect? The behaviour and functions of the press are regularly debated by
committees, councils, the courts, the media themselves and the public. Andrew Belsey
(1992), in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media states that there are three groups
of individuals: personalities (identified as those who are created and sustained by
publicity), people who are involuntarily forced into the public eye, and politicians (and
those of similar power status in society). These groupings or categories distinguished by
Belsey are by no means exhaustive. They simply assist the press create a point of
reference when distinguishing whether a 'newsworthy' piece of writing is in fact a
'matter of public record or obvious or significant public interest'.
Belsey (1992) states that people, who tend to live according to the maxim that all
publicity is good publicity, cannot consistently claim the protection of privacy when
they discover the negative side of the Faustian contract. On the other hand, the second
group of individuals mentioned above are those who are 'shoved' into the spotlight
without actually wanting to be there. These people include victims of tragedy and
disasters, winners of prizes and events, people who have been through amazing operations
or those who have perhaps experienced more than the 'average' citizen. These people do
however have a greater 'right to privacy' than the first group of individuals. Belsey
(1992) sates that when people are involved in public events there can be no objection on
privacy grounds to the press reporting what is already known, together with non-intrusive
background or follow-up stories. However, the act of being 'non-intrusive' is a
subjective matter. What is 'non-intrusive' behaviour to one person may be totally
unacceptable to another.
People who have standing and power within society, and are accountable and answerable to
society (such as politicians), should expect to get at least some attention from the
press. Yet, when a person decides to become a public figure, where is the distinction
made between what in fact is 'public life', and what is 'private life'? Public life and
private life often collapse into each other.
One only has to open the newspaper or turn on the television to be bombarded by a
plethora of information about investigations and scandals into the private lives of
politicians and other influential public figures. The behaviour of these people in their
private lives cannot often be kept separate and distinct from their public lives. For
example, is it in the public's interest to be notified of the private dealings of
politicians, if their dealings can be linked to issues about which the public has a
'right to know'? For example a local politician may be accepting gifts from a local
businessman in return for encouraging fellow members of parliament to push forward local
development plans. If these are confirmed reports (as opposed to rumours and
allegations), then it is the responsibility of the press to inform the public above and
beyond protecting the privacy of that individual.
Hypocrisy and double standards revealed by public figures such as politicians should also
not be tolerated, and therefore exposed by the press. For example, if a politician's
election platform is the importance of family values, the sacred nature of marriage, and
the immorality of adultery, it is expected that the politician will live up to that
political platform. If he/she is proven to have committed adultery, then the platform on
which that particular politician stood has been destroyed. In this case, the public has
the 'right to know'. The politician has given up the right to keep his/her private life
separate and distinct from his/her public life. It would not be right for the media to
cover up real or alleged sexual scandals, nor to blow them up out of all proportion
(Belsey, 1992). If a sex scandal needs to be exposed then it must be reported honestly,
and as fairly as possible.
It is all very easy for the Press Council to write out a list of principles, but how can
Press Council Principal 3 be applied to reporting a rape case where a man is convicted of
raping his daughter. If the father was identified upon his conviction, the victim (his
daughter) would also be automatically identified. The privacy of individuals, according
to the principle, should be protected. However, by doing this, the public's 'right to
know' (also a part of the Principle) is being violated because the right to privacy
should not prevent publication of matters of significant public interest. Should the
public be informed about criminals living in their neighbourhood? Eg. the rapist. 
The ethical responsibility in respecting the privacy of the children and the
responsibility of keeping the public informed for their own safety must be weighed up. 
Journalists, as members of the press have obligations to their employer and the community
in which they work. They have responsibility for the material they write and the effect
it has, and will have on the people they write about both directly and indirectly.
Journalists also have a duty to themselves. 
The once valid use of the defence: 'the public's right to know', in the US and Australia
in the 1950's regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) is often used by the media to
justify those media actions dictated solely by competitive pressures (Hurst and White,
1994). The quest for healthy circulation figures breeds a powerful desire to scoop the
opposition or to publish a story with sensational impact that titillates readers.
It is this sensationalism that is sought after by some journalists which causes the
greatest invasion of privacy irrespective of whether it means stealing the right of
people to grieve, or to deal with traumatic situations such as war and death. 
Most 'newsworthy' stories that are broadcast by the media revolve around tragedy.
Photographs, especially of the dead are part of a disturbing trend to focus on disasters.
One image that remains vivid in the mind of many people is that of a polish girl pictured
in a field grieving over the blood splattered body of her older sister who was killed by
the Germans in 1939. This image was recently re-published in the 75th Anniversary issue
of Time Magazine in March 1998 (nearly 60 years after the photograph was taken). The
photo opportunity was obviously foremost in the photographer's mind as opposed to rushing
to the girl's aid.
In February 1996, The New York Times ran two photos (of two different situations) of
parents identifying the bodies of their dead children. The media was present to publish
the moment in which their greatest private grief was expressed, the moment that their
children's bodies were identified. 
The first photo was taken just as Maria Fernandes was shown the body of her 10-month-old
son killed in a Brazilian mudslide. The second photo showed two fathers, Vincent Balejado
and Joseph Nunez, identifying their children drowned in a ferry boat disaster in the
Philippines. (Mattimoe, 1996). In order to clinch the photograph that most graphically
conveys the grief of the scene a photographer may take several rolls of film of several
different families. 
Very rarely is the media confronted by these families for having, as one father stated:
'robbed us of our grief'. In the United States, one editor was confronted by the father
of a family who was pictured with the body of one of his children after being dragged
from a drainage canal. This rarely occurs because people are often situated a million
miles away from where the photos are published and are not given the opportunity to
respond to the publication.
Due to the frequency of such photographs, they often go unnoticed. Little opposition is
expressed regarding the distaste of such photographs. Would this be the case if the body
of a public figure were to be photographed and paraded on the pages of newspapers and
magazines? Why is it that the publication of photographs revealing the most private grief
of 'unknown' families not be regarded as a violation of privacy? Photographs of public
figures taken in similar situations to those in third world countries for example would
more likely be regarded as tasteless.
One of many invasion of privacy stories that vividly showed the lack of respect that is
shown by the press towards the privacy and sensibility of individuals while keeping the
public informed is reflected in the following example described by News Photographer in
March 1997. 
A reporter discovered that the local police station was gathering evidence about an old
murder case and that the skull of a six-year-old child who was murdered two years earlier
had been found. The reporter visited the station and asked the police chief to remove the
skull from a box and tilt it so that the photojournalist could take a close-up shot of
the skull.
Although the tape taken was regarded as unsuitable to broadcast by some people in the
newsroom, the news director overruled the objections and decided to screen the footage
regardless. Newsroom staff and the family of the victim (who were not consulted) saw the
footage for the first time when it was broadcast on the 6p.m. news. The story opened with
footage of a memorial service for the young victim along with footage of the family and
photos of the child before the child's death. 
The memorial service cannot be regarded as part of the 'public right to know'. It was a
private affair that the public did not need to be informed about. However, it was not the
footage of the memorial service that disturbed the family, it was the close-up shots that
followed of animal remains originally thought to be that of the victims, followed by a
frontal close-up of the tilted skull facing directly towards the camera while a
voice-over identified the skull as belonging to the victim.
Broadcasting images of the skull was recognised by the courts as having a devastating
emotional impact. The court stated that the shot of the skull was 'intentionally included
to create sensationalism for the report'. Staff of the station later admitted that the
images were unnecessary, not newsworthy, and should not have been aired. The station also
recognised that the family should have been consulted, and later apologised for their
behaviour. Apologies are often made too little too late when the emotional impact of what
has been aired is realised, or even thought about.
Although the decisions the press must make regarding what is investigated and what is
reported are difficult, it is important to note that the press often broadcast stories
for the purposes of entertainment rather than for simply informing the public. Due to the
competitive nature of the industry, ratings, circulation, profit and the speed at which
news is conveyed (in an attempt to provide information first) are often given priority
over respecting the privacy and sensibility of individuals. The press does not often
realise the importance of the role they play in society and the responsibility and care
that accompanies that role.
Bibliography
References
1. Belsey, A. & Chadwick, R. (Eds.). (1992). Ethical Issues in Journalism. London:
Routledge.
2. Elshtain, J. (1996). Bad Publicity. The New Republic. v. 215, n7 p.25.
3. Hurst, J. & White, S. (1994). Ethics and the Australian News Media. Melbourne:
Macmillian 
Education Australia Pty. Ltd.
4. Mattimoe, E. (1996). Private griefs public. America. V. 174, n11 p.8.
5. Sherer, M. (1997). When emotional distress leads to the courtroom: extreme behaviour
by news media is rare. News photographer. V. 52, n3 p.12-13