News value and good journalism are synonymous. But what are the limits of the media in reporting events that are not intended to be made public? Or, what is the relationship between public interest and the right to privacy?
For most people, privacy is guaranteed by the virtue of them enjoying less important position in the society. Yet there are others whose status in the society alone is sufficient to arouse interest of the media at any given point of time. Here, media professionals like to defend news value by calling it “public interest.”
Two popular tabloids in the UK, The Sun and the News of the World are found to be highly intrusive into people’s privacy. The nature of reporting in these tabloids is mostly gossip and story of “affairs.” These tabloids have functioned as channels that report the unacceptable behaviors of individuals. Perhaps these are the values the society ideally seeks for. At the other level, however, public interest also serves as a democratic ideal of open government where the public has the right to inspect public figures.
One important issue is: How much of news judgment should the media apply to distinguish between celebrity-type sensational news and genuinely decent public service news?
The 9-11 incident is one recent example that has brought this issue to the forefront. Was it proper for the media to publish videos or photographs of people jumping off the building, either live or within few hours of the incident? What purpose did it serve? Did it intensify the “horror” factor even further? Moreover, how much close-up shot of a dying person is just about right?
While attempting to dramatize an event or intruding into a celebrity's life or dealing with a private grief, I believe editors should weigh as much on taste and decency as they should on news value. The public is also best served by feeding less sensational stories.
November 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
