Privacy and ethics the case of celebrity journalism essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Privacy and ethics, the case of celebrity journalism. Containing the laws and ethics needed to be considered in news and journalism for tabloid papers and magazines....

Description

Emma Brown

Privacy and ethics: the case of celebrity journalism The British tabloids and magazines are packed full of overhyped sensational stories that expose celebrities by invading their privacy. In this essay, I am going to discuss the ethics and regulations involved in celebrity journalism and look at why morals can sometimes be overlooked in the newsroom. Tabloid journalists lie in wait for celebrities in pursuit to find the best gossip. For celebrities, it can be a positive or negative experience, as the morals involved in gathering the stories are questionable:

We can map the precise moment a public figure becomes a celebrity. It occurs at the point at which media interest in their activities is transferred from reporting on their public role (such as their specific achievement in politics or sport) to investigating the details of their private lives. (Turner, 2004, p8) The private life of a celebrity is arguably what builds a celebrities fame in the media. It could be said that the more details released into the public sphere, the more recognition for the celebrity. Nevertheless, this can be both an advantage and disadvantage, as bloggers and journalists aim to find flaws and uncover secrets which can invade the celebrity’s rights of a private life, as stated in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The race for the exclusive rights to a story, is now more competitive than ever as the tabloids, online blogs, magazines and broadsheets, all aim to trump one another in a race to feed their readers. “The most momentous events in human life - birth, death, sexual intimacy - are normally shielded from view.” (Sanders, 2013, p78) This, however, is the kind of gossip that is repeatedly seen across the media, which exposes celebrity lives, revealing what is supposedly seen to be in the public interest. The industry could be described as cut throat, as good journalism is seen as a matter of ignoring the facts, if it means the story has better content [Frost 2011, p11]. Truth and accuracy seem to be low ranked news values when it comes to gossip journalism, as to sell the story to the readers, it must be tempting to the public. What is thought to be in the public interest is sometimes seen as a matter of opinion. The BBC Academy explains that:

Emma Brown

Each news organisation will have different priorities, so will interpret the notion of public interest differently. But there’s another reason why public interest is important to journalists: it can be used to justify the apparently unjustifiable. (BBC 2016) The public are infatuated with the gossip of celebrity cultures, and what should be viewed as in the public interest, is changing as more personal information is considered to be of public interest, which for the celebrity can bring apprehension. There are many TV shows which have also influenced the compulsion of celebrity gossip:

We also live in curiously voyeuristic times where the value of privacy, discretion and the keeping of confidences is undermined by the exhibitionism exemplified by Big Brother and the Jerry Springer Show. We connive in the conversion of human life into spectacle. (Sanders, 2013, p79) It could be argued that the cultural desires of the audience influences the decisions made in the newsrooms, as society has become brainwashed in the celebrity image. In terms of philosophy, gossip journalism can be seen as an analogy of Plato’s cave. Plato’s allegory of the cave is an insightful perception of how society sees celebrities through the media. “The shadowbound consciousness of the prisoners isn't reality, although they take it to be (Sanders, 2003, p53). In this analogy the readers are the prisoners and the journalists are the shadow casters. Journalists are story tellers and truth finders, so for society, journalists are meant to be a trustful source of information, however the truth of image can be distorted by ignoring ethical values, which can deceive readers. It is the job of the Celebrities PR agents to represent the celebrity to the media. They have the ability to gain the celebrity publicity, but also divert attention from them. In order to get more positive publicity, celebrities will purposely put themselves in the media. Madonna recently raised over $7.5 million for Malawi with a charity auction and concert [Shawnté, 2016]. By promoting charities and giving money to organisations, celebrities put themselves in a positive light, inevitably avoiding negative publicity. Magazines and tabloids such as OK magazine and The Sun, are just some examples of where to find the most celebrity gossip which are most popular among culture. “celebrity-bashing can be read as a 'momentary experience of power and control' whereby the reader is symbolically involved in '

Emma Brown dragging' the famous down.” (Holmes & Redmond, 2003, p293) Readers like to criticise these celebrities to feel superior. People also become astonished that celebrities can have the same problems as regular people and this can be somewhat surprising to see their real private lives. The online tabloids and gossip sites undermine each other in order to get the most business even if it means ruining lives and potentially loosing themselves money in court cases for libel damage. It could be said that bloggers have the power to take the step further when reporting celebrity gossip:

many blogs take the form of an online diary and arguably to not serve the news dissemination purpose that shield laws are intended to protect, other blogs provide analysis of news and current events in a manner comparable to traditional media outlets. (Bauer, 2009, p748) Bloggers and journalists both process celebrity news in different ways. It could be said that bloggers have more of an advantage and have the freedom to express opinion. They have a smaller audience compared to the papers, which suggests the need to find such astonishing headlines and this can encourage readers. Compared to traditional journalists who see good journalism as reporting truth and accuracy, bloggers have more leverage when it comes to stating opinions and creating shocking headlines. As “bloggers who are free of the organizational and economic constraints faced by traditional journalism can operate as self-appointed ‘watchdogs of the watchdogs’” (Vos et al, 2012, p853) Bloggers act as critics to traditional news as self-regulators meaning they are able to disparage the content. It could be suggested that the blogger is both a celebrity’s worst enemy and best friend as they have the power to boost celebrity careers, but also lower them in estimation. If a celebrity is not happy with an article and wants to take legal action, then there are a number of ways which bloggers can deal with the situation. “Newspaper people try to get everything right, but given that they are human beings writing and editing huge amounts of copy on unforgiving deadlines, often they don’t” (Sullivan, 2013). If mistakes happen, then an autonomous individual must make corrections to the article as well as issuing an apology. This is usually the case with newspapers, however, when it comes to blogs, making a big deal of a situation can inevitably lead to more attention to the blogger’s site, and this can sometimes be a waste of time as then it becomes known to more people and the celebrity will get more attention from the negative publicity. When it comes to photographs, the paparazzi will often lie in wait for celebrities in hope to catch them in public to create allusive stories. The IPSO, which took over the PCC, aims to regulate and

Emma Brown maintain journalistic standards. “The Code relates generally to respect for private and family life, home, health and correspondence and states that it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.” (Editors’ code, 2016) It can be the image that sells a tabloid to the public, so the more scandalous the photograph appears, the more attention it will bring. Celebrities are a public figures that influence society, making them fair game to the media, however it is still important that their private life is respected as enforced by the IPSO code. If the celebrity is in a public space and the reason is justifiable, the press are free to take photos as long as they can justify why they are taking. In order to attempt control of tabloids and magazines, celebrities will make deals to ensure that the content that they want is released and what they want to remain private stays out of the limelight:

Such major stars are not only able to limit their appearances to key media with copy approval but they are also able to sufficiently protect their privacy to ensure that those are the only stories that get out. (Frost, 2007, p35) Celebrity agents will often tell tabloids what the celebrity wants to be published. The agents choose writers and photographers as well as the questions that the tabloids are allowed to ask in order to gain control over the process [Grewal, S] This can make it difficult for the tabloids, as it limits them to content which makes it harder to sell to readers, but for the celebrity, it gives them peace of mind that no negative content will be written. This questions the relationship trust between celebrities and the media because of the need to control content. In 2000, Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas chose to control the media output of their wedding photos, as the couple made a deal with OK! Magazine worth £1,000,000 to have the exclusive rights. It was made clear by the celebrities that they would be choose which photographs were made public and no other media source would be allowed access to their wedding. However, a photographer from OK magazine sold a photographs from the event to Hello! Magazine. “Hello! was in breach of commercial confidence and of the Data Protection Act 1998” (Craig 2004). It is arguable as to whether celebrities actually have control over the media, as media sources will try and overstep ethical boundaries in order to make more money. The personal details of a celebrity’s life can sometimes be published, which can question the justification of the ethical boundaries. In October 2002, the Court of Appeal awarded damages for breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 when Naomi Campbell was a victim to the Mirror, who published photographs showing the details of her therapy for drug use. “The Mirror had been entitled to publish the “fact” that Miss Campbell was a drug addict and seeking therapy, but not the

Emma Brown “details” of her therapy, which were “sensitive personal data” (Turle, 2003) The fact that Naomi was a drug addict remained in the public interest, as she is a well-known model who people admired, but the personal details were a breach of the data protection act, as the information did not need to be known to the public. It is important to separate the facts and the personal details when it comes to reporting celebrity gossip, as it can be distressing for the celebrity and they will inevitably take action against the media source. The media can overstep their ethical boundaries to the point that the celebrity has become a victim of defamatory or data protection exposure, which they are then able to take legal action. If a celebrity has been the target of, as Graeme Turner describes, “’attack dog journalism’” (Tuner, G 2004, p48), they are able to take Redress. Redress is an organisation that helps victims of torture. Hank Hogan was able to take Redress after Gawker, a gossip site, published a short extract of a leaked sex tape. Hogan was awarded $115 million dollars by the court. Peter Theil, another victim of a Gawker attack, funded Hank’s case as Theil explained that he didn’t want Gawker ““getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest””(Morozov, 2013). Journalists, editors and bloggers are all under a lot of time pressure, as the competition for exclusives and first publications mean that it can tempting to overlook ethical values. Time pressure can coax news teams into making decisions which can lead to court cases if laws have been ignored purely for entertainment purposes In some cases, such as the Leveson enquiry, the privacy of celebrities, politicians and ordinary people were uncovered which caused life damaging effects. “Privacy is probably the greyest moral area for journalists and unwanted publicity perhaps one of the greatest causes of suffering to ordinary people.” (Sanders, 2013, p77) The phone hacking scandal saw many celebrity’s phones hacked including Charlotte Church, who was rewarded £600,000 for damages and costs by the High Court. Charlotte’s voicemail was hacked and she also told the courts that “there were photographers outside her house on most days and her manager had found evidence of a camera hidden in a shrub outside her home.” (BBC, 2012) Charlotte’s privacy was disrespected on many ethical values which defy the IPSO code of practice under the code of clandestine devices and subterfuge:

the press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent. (Editors code, 2016)

Emma Brown It is this kind of indecency that shows what extremes tabloids will go to, as editors compete to maintain sales and keep their exclusive news tags. It is a competition to find the facts for journalists, in order to get as much details as possible that can be released into the public sphere. The News of the World defied many laws under the IPSO code, the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection act. It could be said that this scandal caused the media to have a ‘chilling-effect’ on freedom of speech, but scandal showed how ethics can be considered a burden in the newsroom, regardless of whether the process is immoral is not. For celebrities, being in the spotlight can be an advantage or disadvantage, as the media can make a difference to the careers of celebrities and for this reason the relationship between both parties needs to be fair. Journalists and bloggers have the right to report hypocrisy and corruption, but it is important that the codes are balanced in order to not portray defamatory. Celebrity journalism creates pressures due to time, competition and keeping to ethical codes, and for this reason, the race to achieve accuracy and truth can be overlooked. Unfortunately in some cases, the pressure influences editors to ignore moral code in order to meet deadlines and feed their readers. The effects of ignoring the codes can result in fines and injunctions, which inevitably lose the company money and trust of readers.

Bibliography Bauer, A. (2009). Blogging on broken glass: Why the proposed free flow of information act needs a specific test for determining when media shield laws apply to bloggers. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 10(2), 747. BBC (2012, February 27). Charlotte Church ’sickened’ by NOW phone hacking. BBC UK. Retrieved from http: //www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17178550 BBC. (2016). The public interest. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/values/article/art20130702112133792

Emma Brown Craig, C. (2004). Zeta-jones – so what's the damage? Computer Law and Security Review: The International Journal of Technology and Practice, 20(2), 137-138. doi:10.1016/S0267-3649(04)00024X Editors’ code. (2016). Retrieved November 19, 2016, from https://www.ipso.co.uk/faqs/editorscode/ Editors’ code of practice. (2016). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from https://www.ipso.co.uk/editorscode-of-practice/#Privacy Evans, M. (2011, January 27). Hacking phones: What the law says. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8285948/Hacking-phones-What-the-law-says.html Furedi, F. (2010). Celebrity culture. Society, 47(6), 493-497. doi:10.1007/s12115-010-9367-6 Frost, C. (2011). Journalism ethics and regulation (3rd;3; ed.). Harlow: Longman. doi:10.4324/9781315833385 Grewal, S. (1999). Shining the stars: Hoping to please the celebrities who boost their sales, some magazines are blurring the distinction between journalism and PR: Final edition. The Gazette Holmes, S., & Redmond, S. (2003). Framing celebrity: New directions in celebrity culture. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203715406 Jones, B., & Norton, P. (2013;2014;). politics uk (8th; ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson. doi:10.4324/9781315740720 Morozov, E. (2016, May 28). The celebrity privacy case that exposes hypocrisy of silicon valley power brokers. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/28/gawkerhulk-hogan-silicon-valley-privacy-peter-thiel Sanders, K. (2003). Ethics & journalism. London: SAGE. Sullivan, M. (2013, January 16). Make no mistake, but if you do, here’s how to correct it. The Public Editor’s Journal. Retrieved from http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/make-nomistake-but-if-you-do-heres-how-to-correct-it/?_r=0 Shawnté, B. (2016). Madonna raises over $7.5 Million for Malawi with charity auction and concert. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from Charity, http://celebritiesdogood.com/2016/12/madonna-raisesover-7-5-million-for-malawi-charity-auction-concert/

Emma Brown Turle, M. (2003). Altered images: Mirror wins victory over naomi campbell as high court decision is overturned. Computer Law and Security Review: The International Journal of Technology and Practice, 19(1), 54-55. doi:10.1016/S0267-3649(03)00112-2 Turner, G. (2004). Understanding celebrity. Thousand Oaks; London: SAGE. Vos, T. P., Craft, S., & Ashley, S. (2012). New media, old criticism: Bloggers’ press criticism and the journalistic field. Journalism, 13(7), 850-868. Lowrey, W. (2006). Mapping the journalism–blogging relationship. Journalism, 7(4), 477-500. doi:10.1177/1464884906068363...