Privacy Clause in Danger

If we had to find the ethics clause that is the less respected by journalist, it would probably be the clause of privacy, especially when it concerns celebrities.

The editors’ code by IPSO has a specific clause for privacy which specified that journalists must respect every human being’s privacy, that pictures cannot be taken in private places without people’s consent; and that any intrusions should be justified. However when going through the articles about celebrity, most of them doe not respect the privacy clause.

*Clause 3 Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Note – Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So, why is it acceptable? Why are there so few complaints? Is it ethical to breach the editor’s code if it is to interest the public? Which of the code and the interest of the public should come first?

What interest the public is often mistaken as the public interest, however these two values are completely different. On one hand what interest the public contains everything that the public is keen on reading. On the other hand, the public interest is defined by the editor’s code of practice (IPSO)which says:

1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to: i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety. ii) Protecting public health and safety. iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

For this reason, I believe that invading someone’s privacy to write about what interest the public is not ethical. I believe that it can be right to do it, but only in really specific case, and for the public interest, a news really important that the public should be aware of. However invading the privacy of someone to have pictures of them with their kids, in their house, during their weddings, or to break the news is not a reason to breach the code.

These articles are more to use more copy of a newspaper, to attract the public, but it is not real journalism and it should not be on front pages of newspapers. I think that reporting on celebrities and the powerful is important, and because it is news worthy, but it does not mean that journalists should cross the line and go so far that they end up completely invading their private life.

It is true that this line became extremely easy to cross with the growth of social media, but in any cases does it mean that it is right to do it.

#ethics