On yesterday’s short subway ride, I skimmed through the Metro’s stories. Chile is in crisis—awful shame, really; Bernado’s buddy, an army colonel, is arrested for several rapes and murders—disgusting. On a more uplifting note, Kelly Osbourne is still sober and—WOW! Dancing With The Stars has done her body wonders. And look how cute her and Luke Worrall are together.
While Kelly does look fit in the photographic spreads, I cannot help but find the size of the display a tad large. See, Kelly’s “new slamming body” is granted double the page space than Chile’s natural disaster. What does this say about the paper’s priorities? Is this story newsworthy? Further, is it ethical?
In this case, Kelly may not take much issue with the paper’s praise. Many celebrities, however, are often outraged by the press’ invasions on their privacy. One high-profile case that comes to mind is the coverage on Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas’ wedding. The magazine, Hello!, published photographs of the celebrity wedding without permission. As the high court ultimately ruled, the celebrity couple had the right to keep the details of their wedding private.
While journalism often requires prying into people’s lives to be able to deliver truthful, relevant information to the public, Hello!’s prying in this case was not justifiable. Primarily, Hello!’s actions were not justifiable because the story was published to deliver celebrity gossip, fulfilling market wants and their bank accounts, instead of being published to benefit the greater good.
More simply, the private information they published was not relevant—a requirement the guideline for journalistic ethics insists on, especially in controversial cases like those concerning privacy rights (Source: Dale Jacquette, Journalistic Ethics, 2007). On the other hand, OK!’s publication of the celebrity wedding details is ethical because the information was voluntarily given to them by the couple (for a price, of course), releasing them from any privacy issues (see the image above).
While individuals have rights to their privacy, in many cases, these rights can be overcome by greater needs in the public interest. Giving the individuals all of the control in what information about them gets discovered would place great limits on the press. A political figure lying to the public, for instance, could protect those lies by forbidding any investigations into his life on a claim for privacy. In cases when just cause for investigation is present, it is important that journalists have the power to uncover important (potentially dangerous) truths.
Writing Rule:
Herein lies the scale on which journalists should weigh their motives for invading privacy. As a journalist, you should be searching for legitimate news, news that enables the public to make good political decisions, when potentially invading one’s privacy. So, resist the lure of the beautiful bods and wealthy weddings.
While Kelly does look fit in the photographic spreads, I cannot help but find the size of the display a tad large. See, Kelly’s “new slamming body” is granted double the page space than Chile’s natural disaster. What does this say about the paper’s priorities? Is this story newsworthy? Further, is it ethical?
In this case, Kelly may not take much issue with the paper’s praise. Many celebrities, however, are often outraged by the press’ invasions on their privacy. One high-profile case that comes to mind is the coverage on Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas’ wedding. The magazine, Hello!, published photographs of the celebrity wedding without permission. As the high court ultimately ruled, the celebrity couple had the right to keep the details of their wedding private.
While journalism often requires prying into people’s lives to be able to deliver truthful, relevant information to the public, Hello!’s prying in this case was not justifiable. Primarily, Hello!’s actions were not justifiable because the story was published to deliver celebrity gossip, fulfilling market wants and their bank accounts, instead of being published to benefit the greater good.
More simply, the private information they published was not relevant—a requirement the guideline for journalistic ethics insists on, especially in controversial cases like those concerning privacy rights (Source: Dale Jacquette, Journalistic Ethics, 2007). On the other hand, OK!’s publication of the celebrity wedding details is ethical because the information was voluntarily given to them by the couple (for a price, of course), releasing them from any privacy issues (see the image above).
While it would seem the couple, as they sold exclusive rights to OK!, was not overly concerned about the public viewing details from their wedding, they should still be in control of who is allowed in and who is covering their wedding. In fact, Catherine Zeta-Jones expressed Hello!’s invasion caused her great distress. Because the celebrity wedding does not constitute newsworthy information, the couple has to right to reserve their privacy.
While individuals have rights to their privacy, in many cases, these rights can be overcome by greater needs in the public interest. Giving the individuals all of the control in what information about them gets discovered would place great limits on the press. A political figure lying to the public, for instance, could protect those lies by forbidding any investigations into his life on a claim for privacy. In cases when just cause for investigation is present, it is important that journalists have the power to uncover important (potentially dangerous) truths.
Writing Rule:
Herein lies the scale on which journalists should weigh their motives for invading privacy. As a journalist, you should be searching for legitimate news, news that enables the public to make good political decisions, when potentially invading one’s privacy. So, resist the lure of the beautiful bods and wealthy weddings.
No comments:
Post a Comment