Introduction

 

“One of the underlying tenets of journalism is the duty of journalists to uncover and reveal information to their viewers” (Kieran, Morrison & Svennig, 2000, p. 145). The concept of journalism is supposed to concern itself with reporting matters of public interest and opening such matters for public comment (Kieran et. Al., 2000). They are treated as a fourth estate of governance, reporting on those in the public eye and on behalf of the public to fully inform them about that which affects them (Kieran et. Al., 2000). With privacy being of unparalleled importance in this decade (Hodges, 1994), a moral and ethical dilemma is presented for journalists. Journalists are encouraged to treat privacy as a general right to the immunity of the person, necessary in the face of increasing intensity of complexity of life (Baghai, 2012). However, when reporting on celebrities, are they regarded as equals with the broader community? Does this immunity apply to those in the public sphere or has their occupation and/or own actions forfeited that right?

MEAA Code of Ethics

 

The fundamental principles of journalism are to respect the truth and provide the public with the information they have a right to receive (MEAA, 2013). However, there is a thin line between the public’s right to information and intrusion of privacy. The Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), an Australian media union and public organisation, have therefore supplied a code of ethics. Anyone who is a member of the alliance is bound by the code (MEAA, 2013). However, the 12 clauses of the code are not clear-cut and like many elements of the profession, can often be open to personal interpretation. Clauses 8 and 11 of the MEAA Code of Ethics specifically attribute themselves to privacy protection. Section 8 states “Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person's vulnerability or ignorance of media practice” (MEAA, 2013). Whilst clause 11 states “Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude” (MEAA, 2013). 

 

 

 

The importance of Privacy

 

To understand privacy, it must be defined. How privacy is defined varies dramatically dependant on personal beliefs as well the context it is being used in. However, ethics theorist Sessela Bok broadly defines it as “the condition of being protected from unwanted access by others–physical access, personal information, or attention” (Hodges, 1994, p. 198). Westin concurrently defines it as "the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others" (Hodges, 1994, p. 198). 

Privacy is a fundamental human right as stated in Article 12 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, n.d.). Australian privacy law revolves around The Privacy Act 1988 which regulates the handling of information of individuals in Australia including the use, storage, access and disclosure of such information (Australian Government, n.d.). Elsewhere, a study of the codes of 30 European countries found that 87% of these codes included clauses for privacy protection (Chadwick, 2004).    

 

“Without privacy - transparency, openness, access to information, community, uninhibited exuberance would not exist to any meaningful degree” (Keizer, 2013, p. 288).

 

To have privacy is to possess control over your circles of intimacy; you control which aspects of your life remain private, and which you publicise (Whitehouse, 2010). Whilst it is difficult for journalists to determine differences between privacy invasion and information that is of public interest, there have been examples that show there is most certainly a need for a line between the two. Examples such as the Jane Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] VCC 281 highlight the need for the media to respect privacy. The afternoon after a man “x” was sentenced for rape and other offences, his name was broadcast on national radio, and in a later bulletin, so was the victim’s. It is illegal under Section 4(1A) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (VIC) to identify victims of sexual crime, as is the identification of the accused if it then leads to presumption of the identity of the victim (Pearson & Polden, 2015). In subsequent proceedings the reporter and sub-editor were subject to criminal and civil proceedings with no convictions recorded. However, Jane Doe sued the ABC and both journalists for a number of civil violations including breach of privacy, and was awarded $234 190 in damages (Pearson et. Al., 2015). The Jane Doe case exemplifies the MEAA code of ethics positively influencing the journalism profession. The journalists involved have breached clause 8 by exploiting a person’s vulnerability, and clause 11 by not respecting private grief and personal privacy.

Celebrity Journalism/News

 

Celebrity journalism is not seen as a respectable branch of the profession, influenced by its production and information gathering processes in comparison with “hard news.” The primary difference distinguishing celebrity journalism from other forms is that it is managed by the producers of the news themselves, the celebrities (Turner, 2014). It is usually generated for commercial reasons in serving those at the centre of the story by obtaining as wide a distribution as possible (Turner, 2014).  Whilst they are human beings and have the right to conceal their personal lives, their career is dependent on the amount of exposure they receive (Hodges, 1994).

The term ‘celebrity news’ itself is an issue (Turner, 2014). When it comes to reporting on celebrities, the line between private information and public interest information has become increasingly hard to decipher, leaving an ethical dilemma for journalists. This is largely due to the modern day celebrity culture. Celebrity culture refers to the “popularising certain people who have certain attributes that society deem exceptional” (Celebrity Culture, n.d.).

 

A compelling case was made by academic Charles Ponce de Leon that celebrity culture and journalism is not a ‘grotesque mutation’ but rather a spread of the market economy and an evolution and democratic and individual values (Feeley, 2012). He uses the term ‘human-interest journalism’ to refer to a new style of reporting which presents celebrities as identifiable, flawed, accessible and appealing media subjects.

In years gone by, people of this status such as singers, actors and sports stars required certain talents and ideologies to be known in society (Celebrity Culture, n.d.). The meaning of celebrity is now applied to people who are famous for being famous (Furedi, 2010).  

An example is “celebrity” Amber Rose. Her claim to fame was accompanying rapper Kanye West to the 2009 MTV Music Awards as well as being a former stripper (Waguespack, 2015). Aside from her claim to fame moment six years ago, she has been publically involved in a feud with the Kardashian family (another prime example) and appeared in a number of music videos. These few spotlight moments have seen her be classified as in the top 1000 people searched online (Famous Birthdays, 2015). Evidently, modern society has become obsessed with every detail of the celebrity life.

Difficulties of Celebrity Privacy

 

The ultimate question relating to celebrity privacy and the media is do these public figures have the same implied right to privacy as the rest of the population? Academic Paul Chadwick believes that since not all celebrities achieved fame in the same manner, that the answer to whether the public interest outweighs the person’s reasonable expectation of privacy will differ (Chadwick, 2004). Chadwick’s taxonomy of fame categorises five sources of fame that he believes will ease pressure on journalists deciphering if their material is deemed ethical (Chadwick, 2004). These five categories are as follows

 

• Fame by election or appointment

• Fame by achievement

• Fame by chance

• Fame by association

• Royal fame

•  

The utilisation of this taxonomy is vital to ensuring journalists understand the boundaries of privacy and do not breach the associated clauses of the MEAA code (clauses 8 and 11) (MEAA, 2013). Fame by achievement encompasses the stereotypical celebrities such as film & television stars, actors & singers who ‘exchange’ privacy for the fame that sources their income (Chadwick, 2004).  

Therefore, if their careers depend on publically publishing their private material to gain leverage in Hollywood, have they foregone any right to privacy?

 

Academic Louis Hodges believes so, stating that their chosen occupation, has foregone any measure of privacy on behalf of them (Hodges, 1994).

Warren Beatty once said “Privacy is a sort of simple matter in my case. I don't have any, and I don't really expect any. I knew what business I was going into when I went into the movies, and I think probably there is something in all of us that would be sort of disappointed to be left alone” (Hodges, 1994, p. 207). British Journalist and media personality Piers Morgan has stated “Once you step outside your home, it’s open season” (Booth, 2013, p. 63).

Whilst it may seem clear cut that celebrities of this nature have therefore no right to privacy, a number of examples have identified that this is not the case.

 

A prime example of this is the Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004]. British model Naomi Campbell was photographed leaving a Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meeting in 2004. British Newspaper “The Mirror” published these photos the following days accompanying the headline “Naomi: I’m a drug addict” (5RB, 2004). The faces of other attendees in the photograph were blurred out as there was a public interest solely in Ms Campbell’s treatment for drug addiction, which she admitted was justified. However, Ms Campbell claimed breach of confidentiality for the publication of further details (5RB, 2004). The original verdict stated that it was in the public interest as she was a well-known figure and the publication was justified. The verdict was reversed on appeal, on the basis that it would have caused substantial offence to an ordinary person (5RB, 2004)

The verdict itself is a contradiction as the original verdict stated that as she was a person of public interest, her actions were deemed newsworthy and the publication permissible (5RB, 2004). However, the verdict on appeal suggested that it did not matter that she was of celebrity status and was therefore unethical and in breach of Britain’s code of ethics (National Union of Journalists Code) Clause 6:  “Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest (NUJ, 2011). This clause shares extensive similarities with the MEAA’s clause 11 (MEAA, 2013).

 

This verdict would suggest that celebrities’ and ordinary citizens’ privacy is of equal value. Baroness Hale who ruled on the Campbell v MGN trial doesn’t believe so. “Each in their time has profited from the other. On the one hand is a woman who wants to give up her dependence on harmful drugs and wants the peace and space in which to pursue the help. On the other hand is a newspaper  which wants to keep its readers informed of the activities of celebrity figures and to expose their weaknesses, lies, evasions and hypocrisies” (Chadwick, 2004, p. 9).

In the modern era of celebrity journalism, this is the journalist’s dilemma – Where is the line? Does privacy apply to celebrities? Are members of the MEAA (and similar worldwide) still bound by its code of ethics if the people they are reporting on are deemed to be of a different nature to the mainstream public?

 

However, as Chadwick states, it is important to align the reportage of celebrities with the category they fall under. We must not categorise movie stars & actors as equals with Politicians and Executive Officers.  Politicians are categorised under fame by election (Chadwick, 2004).Unlike those classified under fame by achievement, their careers are not dependant on the media exposure they receive (Chadwick, 2004). Their private information should only be published if such information would greatly affect their ability to fulfil their duties to the public (Hodges, 1994). For example, the sexual orientation of a public figure is highly unlikely to affect their capacity to fulfil duties. Therefore, it would be unethical to report upon.

 

Another category, Fame by chance refers to people caught in tragedy/disaster or good fortune. At first, these people’s privacy is not traded but taken from them.

 

It is important to recognise the type of fame when reporting on public figures. It is particularly essential for the media to distinguish fame by chance as their lack of preparedness can increase the pressures coupled with fame, more so than seasoned professionals who are well versed in public relations (Chadwick, 2004). A problem arises from this taxonomy though. It is possible however for a person to have achieved fame by chance, but later be categorised differently. This provides yet another dilemma for the media, deciphering how to treat a certain public figure. 

A perfect example is the Kardashian Family. The family comprises primarily of the three Kardashian sisters, brought to fame by their rich father (IMDB, 2015). Therefore, they would have been originally classified as coming to fame by chance (Chadwick, 2004). However, fame by chance suggests that their privacy was taken away rather than traded or forfeited. However, the family is known for their willingness to share details of their personal life, many of which an ordinary person would not share. Examples include,

 

• Earlier this year, Kim Kardashian confessed to E! Magazine that doctors had informed her that she was having too much sex (King, 2015).

• In 2007, Kim sold a home-made pornographic video. It is estimated to be worth approximately $30 million currently (Overland, 2011). Many noted lawyers have since said that her consent must have been given for the video to sell, despite her statements on the contrary (Grabert, 2012). 

• A discussion on their brother Rob’s mental health problems is expected to be the headline of the next episode of their reality TV show (Heger, 2015).

•  

Paradoxically, she has stated in 2013 “I have learned to understand the importance of privacy and boundaries” (Finn, 2013). This does not suggest that the family’s privacy has been taken away. On the contrary, it sounds like it has been traded for publicity, categorising them under fame by achievement which would leave the family susceptible for less privacy as proposed by Chadwick and backed up by Baroness Hale (Chadwick, 2004). In terms of their privacy, publication of such material should be regarded as ethical and legal, yet the family still extensively claim privacy.

In 2013, Kim demanded privacy, despite admitting to setting a precedent herself. The TV star states “if someone came up to the table at dinner, I used to get up, take pics and sign an autograph in the middle of our meal. Now, I know that this time is our private time, and I absolutely will as soon as I'm done eating” (Finn, 2013). This statement perfectly sums up the conundrum journalists face when reporting celebrities. How is a journalist supposed to comprehend what Kim believes to be personal time, when she herself admits she has set a precedent?

 

Additionally, there is a difficulty implementing clauses 8 and 11 of the MEAA code, especially when a person is willing to share information that would result in a journalist breaching the code if publication results, as exemplified here. These are just a few examples of private information that would not be shared by an ordinary person. The examples above have breached both clause 8 and 11 of the Code by not respecting personal privacy, and taking advantage of a person’s vulnerability (MEAA, 2013). However, the publication of this material is deemed ethically and morally correct. Does this set a precedent for celebrity reporting? How can the related clauses of the code possibly be implemented when some sources provide permission for unethical material to be published? How can journalists be able to identify the line between what is ethically correct and information that is breaching a person’s right to privacy, when other celebrities are assisting in the publication of unethical material? When the punishment by the MEAA can include fines of $1000 or expulsion from the union (MEAA, 2013), it seems unjust that a celebrity can almost set a journalist up to be unethical.

 

Furthermore, Kim and husband Kanye West have filed a lawsuit against YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley after he published a video of the engagement proposal from West on his website (Associated Press, 2015). This is a prime example of a journalist reporting based on a precedent set by the pair themselves, and yet being disallowed the ability to publish material similar to that published previously by the involved parties. In this case, it would be deemed that Mr Hurley is in breach of clauses 8 and 11 of the MEAA code (MEAA, 2013), despite the publication having overwhelming similarities to the publications mentioned earlier in this section.

Conclusion

 

“In this changing environment for media, journalists may find it useful to reassess their traditional attitudes to privacy” (Chadwick, 2004, p. 14). Whilst privacy is a basic human right, celebrities have forfeited that right through their occupation, and some through selfish acts of their own (Hodges, 1994) clauses 8 and 11 of the code are included to ensure protect a person’s intellectual material and avoid exploitation. Despite ethical journalism often requiring conscientious decision making in context (MEAA, 2013), celebrities are exploiting the system by publicising for their own benefit and claiming immunity. It is an ongoing conundrum for journalists that must be resolved to avoid the escalating claims for privacy breaches upon journalists by public figures. While celebrities are people, they have forfeited the right through their occupation to claim privacy as a regular human being does. Whilst a person is still profiting from publicising and sharing their personal life, no journalist should be condemned or labelled as unethical for simply doing their job, “fulfilling their public responsibly by informing citizens and animating democracy” (MEAA, 2013).

 

 

 

References

 

5RB. (2004). Campbell v MGN Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.5rb.com/case/campbell-v-mgn-ltd-hl/

Associated Press. (2015). Lawsuit over Kimye’s marriage proposal footage advances. Retrieved from http://pagesix.com/2015/04/22/lawsuit-over-kimyes-marriage-proposal-footage-advances/?_ga=1.235911106.2138800410.1429761410Australian Government:

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. (n.d.). The Privacy Act. Retrieved from http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-act/the-privacy-act

Baghai, K. (2012). Privacy as a Human Right: A Sociological Theory. Sociology, 46(5), 951-965.

Booth, L. (1996). Magazines: Photos of Jemima and Imran Khan having sex. New Statesman, 4563(130), 63.  

Celebrity Culture. (n.d.). Celebrity Culture. Retrieved from http://www.celebrityculture.net/

Chadwick, P. (2004). Privacy and Media – subtle compatibility – five categories of fame. Retrieved from https://www.privacy.vic.gov.au/privacy/web2.nsf/files/privacy-and-media-subtle-compatibility/$file/paul_chadwick_speech_15_09_04.pdf

Famous Birthdays. (2015). Amber Rose. Retrieved from http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/amber-rose.html

Finn, N. (2013). Pregnant Kim Kardashian: Kanye West has tought me the value of privacy. Retrieved from http://au.eonline.com/news/391079/pregnant-kim-kardashian-kanye-west-has-taught-me-the-value-of-privacy

Feeley, K. (2012). Gossip as News: on modern U.S. celebrity culture and journalism. History Compass, 10(6), 467-482.

Furedi, F. (2010). Celebrity Culture. Society, 47(6), 493-497.

Grabert, J. (2012). Daniel Craig says Kardashians don’t deserve privacy. Retrieved from http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Daniel-Craig-Says-Kardashians-Don-t-Deserve-Privacy-37444.html

Heger, J. (2015). Rob Kardashian livid momager Kris Jenner featured his problems on ‘KUTWK’: Struggle isn’t a storyline. Retrieved from http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2015/04/rob-kardashian-angry-personal-problems-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-storyline/

Hodges, L. (1994). The Journalist and Privacy: Exploring Questions of Media Morality. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9(4), 197-212.

IMDB. (2015). Keeping up with the Kardashians. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086761/

Keizer, G. (2013). Book Reviews. Journalism & Mass Communicator Educator, 68(3), 288-297.

Kieran, M., Morrison, D., & Svennevig, M. (2000). Privacy, the public and journalism. Journalism, 1(2), 145-159.

King, B. (2015). Kim Kardashian warned she’s having ‘too much’ sex while trying for baby #2. Retrieved from http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/03/18/kim-kardashian-sex-life-warned-by-doctors-too-much/

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2013). Code of Ethics breaches – how to complain. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics-breaches-how-to-complain

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2013). Journalists’ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html

National Union of Journalists. (2011). NUJ Code of Conduct. Retrieved from https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/

Overland, J. (2011). Kim Kardashian’s sex tape starting price $30 million. Retrieved from http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2011/kim-kardashians-sex-tape-starting-price-30-million/

Pearson, M., & Polden, M. (2015). The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law: A handbook for communicators in a digital world. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Turner, G. (2014). Is Celebrity news, news? Journalism, 15(2), 144-152.

United Nations. (n.d.). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Waguespack, A. (2015). Why should we care about Amber Rose? Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/entertainment/celebrities/article/Why-Houston-cares-about-Amber-Rose-6090427.php

Whitehouse, G. (2010). Newsgathering and Privacy: Expanding Ethics Codes to reflect change in the digital media age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 310-327.