Electronic Journalism

Lesson 16 : Ethics of Electronic Journalism

Privacy : Public and Private Individuals

The constitution does not talk about a right of privacy or invasion of privacy. But, throughout the years courts have held that citizens need protection from the unwarranted or unjustified publication of images and information of a private nature. When it comes to invasion of privacy, the laws that evolved make a distinction between private and public individual.

Once individual enter the “public spot light”, either intentionally or through accidental circumstances, they are afforded much less legal protection. We only need look at the supreme market tabloids to see this.

1. At first, it might seem that everyone should be afforded full protection from the public disclosure of private information. But, the problem arises when that “private” information relates to illegal or immoral conduct. For example,


• If a man is convicted of child molesting, can he claim its private information? If so, does he has right to keep the press or internet sites from disclosing that information (and the people in the neighborhood where he lives for knowing about it)?
• If a politician is found guilty of stealing money from the public treasury, do we have a right to know that (especially before the next election)?
• If an evangelist who regularly preaches against illicit sex has sexual affairs, can he claim that this information is private and should not be publicly disclosed?

In these cases, many people feel that, not only does the public have a right to know these things, but also that the press has a responsibility to bring such things to the public’s attention.

But, what if that information is true but voyeuristic in nature and intended primarily to generate ratings or the increased sales of publication?

It has come as a surprise to many journalists that disclosing true and verifiable facts about someone can be an invasion of privacy.

2. to be so, the information must:


• Consist of information of a private nature that is deemed offensive to a reasonable person.
• Consist of information that’s not deemed newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public.
• Be published, broadcast, or in some way disseminated to an audience.

Disclosing that a private individual have AIDS, is a lesbian or a homosexual, may fall into this category, if such facts are not deemed relevant to any present newsworthy story.

Individuals have successfully sued news organizations when they disclosed information about mental retardation, plastic surgery, and in vitro fertilization information that s jury subsequently decided (in the specific circumstances involved) should have been kept private.

Juries are swayed by three factors:

1. How sympathetic they are to the particular plaintiff. Children and older people top that list; public figures rank near the bottom.
2. How extensive the intrusion is. Video ranks first, audio further down the list, and a narrative, especially if it doesn’t specifically refer to the person claiming injury, ranks at the bottom.
3. How the reporter got the information, juries tend to frown on reporters who were clearly trying to “dig up dirt” especially if they used questionable means to obtain the information.

All this assumes that the individual didn’t freely disclose the information. If they did, or if the information could easily be obtained from public records, courts have generally not seen there disclosure of this information as being an invasion of privacy.