Policy

13 Jul 09

Model Naomi Campbell went to court to stop the media using 'private' images

Even if a celebrity culture and the Facebook generation have changed the nature of privacy in Britain, a report published today highlights the right to a private life and the need for a more robust definition of 'public interest'.

The report, published by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, notes an increasing use of the Human Rights Act with media lawyers describing 'privacy as the new libel'. Naomi Campbell and Max Moseley are just two in a growing list of celebrities and public figures who have resorted to court action to safeguard their privacy.

The study 'Privacy, probity and public interest' finds that the starting point should be that a private life 'is itself a considerable and humane public good' and that any media intrusion into private lives has to be justified by a higher public good.

Report author Stephen Whittle, Visiting Fellow at the RISJ and former BBC Controller of Editorial Policy, said: 'The current allegations about the way in which in the News of the World and other papers have sought to access personal data are a wakeup call to journalism. There is huge public concern about privacy and media intrusion. A robust definition of the public interest is possible. It is already implicit in codes, statements and legislation.'

The report cites the following characteristics for 'public interest':
*Citizens in a democracy have an interest in having access to information about the workings of government, its institutions and its officials, both elected and appointed. This interest also extends to private corporations and to voluntary organisations which require the public's trust.
* Individuals holding such office in a public or private institution which seeks the public's trust should be judged for their public acts, not private ones. 'Private' should mean issues to do with personal relations, personal communications, beliefs and past affiliations - always assuming these are within the law - however much these appear to others to be deviant, or immoral, or bizarre.

Mr Whittle acknowledges that such an approach runs the risk of missing concealed scandals which impact on public life. But to argue from this, that therefore all potentially compromising private relationships must therefore be investigated for whatever public misdemeanours they may unearth, is unreasonable. 'There is greater public interest in protecting private life - and that interest must tolerate the occasional missed misdemeanour,' he says.

The report suggests that all media organisations should follow the same approach to intrusion and that the codes of the PCC, the self-regulatory body for the Press, and Ofcom, the statutory regulator for broadcasting, should have a two-stage process: firstly, to justify the intrusion, then secondly, to defend putting the material into the public domain.