privacy invasion- how often is it actually necessary?

Chapter 12 of "Journalism: Theory and Practice", outlines the ethical dilemmas in journalism relating to privacy and public interest.

A a list is provided (on page 191) of the justifications that journalists use for the invasion of people's privacy. These include:

• By entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy: accordingly, they are 'fair game' for enquiring  journalists;
• Journalists have a duty to report private situations when these details could have relevance to the public performance of an individual or group;
• Individual journalists are simply conduits for information, and it is up to the readers/listeners/viewers to decide the limits;
• If it is not illegal, it must be permissible.

However, I noticed a very relevant point in the conclusion of the same chapter. It notes: "It is difficult to see how many of the media's intrusions into individual privacy are to the benefit of us at all."

Personally, the only cases that I believe require the invasion of personal privacy is in relations to matters of public safety, politics, and as part of the 'watchdog' function. Matters that are based upon gossip or scandal are not acceptable.




sources:

Tapsall, S & Varley, C., 2001, "Journalism: Theory and Practice" Journalism Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

recommended reading:

http://www.theherald.com.au/blogs/national-comment/journalists-jealousy-behind-a-blogger-unmasked/1960165.aspx

This Herald article is all about the issue of when it's okay to invade a politician's private life. It was published earlier this year following the revelation of David Campbell's visit to a gay nightclub, a personal choice that has little relevance to his professional life.

Walking The Line

This week while reading Chapter 13 of "Journalism; Theory in Practice", I started thinking about the thin line between journalism and the law, and how careful journalists must be so they do not overstep the mark.

One of the biggest problems a journalist can face with the law in today's society is defamation. In recent years there has been an increasing change in the way news is reported. The traditional objective 'hard news' is gradually being replaced by the 'infotainment' approach to newsmaking. Granted, this is not only the result of a series of decisions made by editors- it is also increasingly the preference of the news consumers.

However, the risk this gossip-styled news takes is unlawfully defaming someone by reporting a harmful opinion, rumour or scandal. There has been an increased numbers of defamation cases as journalists try to entertain the reader with hyped up articles, exaggerating and in some unethical cases changing or ignoring the real facts of the story.

As mentioned, the nature of journalism is changing with the ‘infotainment’ trend, as well as due to what Bivins calls: ‘commercial bias,’ and he explains that: “Increasingly, the business of news is making money” (2009, pg 232). Investigative journalist Phil Dickie says “News, to an unhealthy extent, has become a commodity sold to journalists, with a wholly familiar emphasis on packaging and marketing providing cover for what is often a distinct lack of content.” (Johnston and Zawawi 2000, pg 32). Newspapers now have whole sections dedicated to letting their reporters (most commonly sport, fashion or entertainment) rant and rave in opinion pieces about the personal lives of their favourite football player, actor or high profile figure. It is this 'personalisation' of news that can become quite dangerous for the reporter as they struggle to find the balance between gossip and truth.

Recently I was shown a coloum by a friend (an avid soccer follower) in which Robbie Slater, a journalist and former soccer player, openly bad mouthed current Socceroo Harry Kewell.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/soccer/the-robbie-slater-column-which-started-the-row-with-harry-kewell/story-e6frg26u-1225906815925

In this column, Slater claims that a player (who remain anonymous) had sworn at Kewell and told him "he was of no value to the Socceroos any more." Kewell felt defamed by the article, denying that the incident took place, and challenging Slater to reveal his source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJXrGJtJnsI

This is just one example of where a journalist (possibly biased from his own soccer history) defamed someone, which was largely enabled by the opinion-piece style of the article. I believe this case exemplifies how the demand for entertainment from journalists makes the legalities of reporting an even more slippery slope. 

References:

Johnston, Jane. & Zawawi, Clara., 2000, Public Relations Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, NSW.


Bivins, Tom., 2009, “Ethics in News Journalism,” Mixed Media:Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations, and Journalism, Routledge.

Journalism and PR: friends of foes?

I have recently been considering the implications that PR practie has on the journalism/ news industry. These are my thoughts:


Since gaining prominence in the 50s (Kirby, 2009), PR has grown considerably, which a number of sources attribute to the fact that PR strategies are now being implemented by small groups and businesses, and not only by leading authorities like government departments. Unfortunately, while PR has been flourishing, journalism has been declining. The nature of journalism has changed since the introduction of new media, which has obliged journalists to learn new skills and practices to accommodate for new formats. Another change in news is due to audience’s increasing interest in entertainment as opposed to hard news. One effect is addressed by Nick Cohen (1998), who says “the number of national newspaper journalists has remained the same since the 1960s, but the size of newspapers has doubled; the same number of people are doing twice the work. News is the chief victim” (Dinan and Miller, 2008, pg 252).

When you consider the combined result of these trends, it’s easy to see that the next big influence over the changing nature of journalism is the increasing presence of PR.

I found a youtube clip of a US PR practitioner who gives a diplomatic view of the two professions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJkX4Z6edT0 (4min 50 sec)



The PR practitioner in the clip says “we [PR practitioners] provide news, truth and information, and the journalists provide analysis, coverage, and fair reporting. And that’s how we look at it as a joint relationship. We call that the information subsidy, and we’re both partners in making that happen.” However, he then adds “It’s not always a smooth partnership.” This refers to the fact that PR practitioners and journalists have an uneasy relationship. This is largely a result of PR piracy.

What is PR refers to when news content is obtained or (more often) pitched by a PR source via PR strategy. The most common tactic used is the media release, however other ways include press conferences, campaigns or simply building rapport with journalist contacts.

Several factors allow PR Piracy to happen. For example, PR has a number of advantages such as the growing number of PR firms and practitioners, more resources, and the development of PR theory and practices. These factors contribute to the greater saturation of PR material being pitched to news journalists, and the skill with which this is done. In contrast, journalism is under increasing pressure. As I’ve mentioned, new media, media conglomeration, and expanding job descriptions are all factors that disadvantage journalism. Davis asserts “As news organisations have been forced to make cuts while simultaneously increasing output, so their dependency on PR has grown” (Davis, 2003).

The two sides of the debate

FOR:

Julia Hobsbawn says: “The role of PR is to provide information, to ‘tell the truth persuasively,’ and to allow journalism the right to interpret, for good or bad… PR has nothing to hide. We send out press releases and give briefings openly... With the exception of the mutually beneficial ‘off the record’ quote, PR is transparent. But journalists’ egos often make them demur when admitting the involvement of public relations.” (Dinan and Miller, 2008, pg 253)

AGAINST:

Christina Odone says: “PR meets journalism in Caribbean freebies, shameless back-scratching and undeclared interests. A link to a PR firm should spell professional suicide for a journalist, rather than a place on a highfalutin advisory board. Journalists should meet PR in a spirit of hostility- treating the information passed on as suspect, scrutinizing possible motives and investigating possible links.” – (2006) (Dinan and Miller, 2008, pg 253)


Davis says “The only thing that can be definitively concluded is that public relations and news production are highly dependent on each other.” (Davis 2003, pg 31). However I think Bivins’ conclusion is more appropriate, that: “Subjectivity always creeps into the choices made by reporters and editors on what to include or what to emphasize in a story. News people are all too human, and sometimes they are not even aware of their biases. But on the whole, the mainstream press does try, with imperfect results, to be fair.” (Bivins, 2009, pg 229).

Bibliography

Conley, David. & Lamble, Stephen., 2005, The Daily Miracle, third edn, Oxford University Press, Victoria.

Davis, Aeron., 2003 “Public Relations and News Sources”, Public Relations and Power, (ed) Cottle, Simon., SAGE Ltd, ISB: 9780857022776

Dinan, William. & Miller, David., 2008, “Journalsim, Public Relations, and Spin,” (eds) Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin,. & Hanitzsch, Thomas., Handbook of Journalism Studies, Routledge.

Kirby. B. (2009) Overview of Contemporary Public Relations Theory. In B. Sheehan & R. Xavier (eds) Public Relations Campaigns. Oxford: South Melbourne. 31-52.

Technological Tailspinning

Chapter 15 of "Journalism: Theory and Practice" discusses new media in journalism and how it has affected journalism both historically and in the present day.

A supplementary source on the history of journalism and the impact of new media can be found at http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/11/10/new_media_journalism_how_professional.htm
One of it's first points about new media relates to the 'citizen journalism' that has arisen from it, and the credibility and objectivity issues that have arison out of that in turn. In relation to this, the source makes this point:

'The barbarians have entered the gates. Is the empire on the verge of collapse? Nowadays, the word "amateur" is being deployed by media professionals to belittle the media-making efforts of bloggers and others who create media productions outside the journalism guilds. Such reporting is deemed "unreliable", "biased", "subjective"; they are "unaccountable", the facts and the sources "unverifiable".

All of this must be puzzling to historians of the modern mass media. Consider the first newspaper in English, a translation of a Dutch coranto, printed in Amsterdam in December 1620 and exported to England. It began with an apology, a typographical error, a number of lies and disinformation. The apology appeared in the first line of the publication: "The new tydings out of Italie are not yet com"... Verily, a very unprofessional beginning!'

This would suggest that the author supports new media and the citizen journalism it enables.

However, a contradictory argument is also provided: "There's a big misconception among professional journalists that the new media is about news. Wrong. It's about self-expression, it's about participating in defining and shaping the information/communication environments in which we live. The various forms of digital media - blogging, podcasting, social bookmarking and networking, etc. - are merely the means and the channels for achieving this."  Therefore, although new media enables citizen journalism which has the potentional to be just as successful and beneficial as traditional mediums, that does not mean that that is what these mediums are being used for. Food for thought.