Invasions of privacy: Is it in the public interest or for the public's interests?

Do journalists have the right to invade someone’s privacy? What reasons or defences are considered morally okay to do so?  With so many questions only one thing’s for sure; privacy is a moral and ethical minefield for journalists and the media in general. 

According to Keiran (1997, as cited in Richards, 2001, p. 188), “the notion of the private delineates a sphere within which we are free to be intimate with others and pursue goals and interests we have without being subject to the public gaze.” The personal and sometimes intruding nature of a journalist’s job makes the line between respecting privacy and invading privacy a fine one. What I find particularly fascinating however, is the ‘unspoken rule’ that seems to exist regarding celebrities and the invasion of their privacy by the media.

Richards (2001) notes there has been a significant shift from current affairs and government news to entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle in our society. We can’t deny it; we are utterly obsessed when it comes to knowing the private and detailed lives of the people we admire. The invasion of privacy debate is certainly well documented when it comes to celebrities. They argue that they have the same legal and moral rights as any individual when it comes to keeping their privacy. On the other hand, “by entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy: accordingly, they are ‘fair game’ for enquiring journalists” (Richards, 2001, p.191). 

This justification questions whether the invasion of a celebrity’s personal life is in the public interest or for the public’s interests. A forum called ‘Celebrities and privacy? You asked a barrister’ was held by BBC News in 2003 to discuss whether celebrities lose their fundamental right because of their choice to be in the public eye. It bases its discussion on the lawsuit by Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas who are claimed 500,000 pounds in damages against Hello! Magazine. They said the tabloid invaded their privacy by taking and publishing unauthorised photos of their wedding. In the end, barrister Iain Christie stated, “what the courts are trying to reconcile is the idea that even a public figure does have a right to privacy against the public interest in receiving information about them” 
(BBC News, 2003, online).

I’d say I would have to agree on this. While celebrities do lose some right to privacy by being in the public eye, I don’t believe they should lose all rights. They are, after all, individuals who deserve some aspect of normality. Journalists and the media need to be wary of this and really question whether it is in the public interest or for the public’s interests.

Sources:

BBC News World Edition. (2003). Celebrities and privacy? You asked a barrister. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/2744599.stm 

Richards, I. (2001). Public interest, private lives. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 187-197). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.