Exploring the Ethics of Privacy: An Annotated Bibliography

Sanders, K., (2003). Ethics and Journalism. London: Sage Publications

In chapter seven of this academic text, Dr Karen Sanders, a prominent author on ethics in professional communication, attempts to define privacy, our right to privacy, how this concerns the condition of celebrity and the ethics of dealing with privacy in journalism. Her authoritative position and extensive references to other reliable sources establish the text’s credibility.

Sanders refines the definition of privacy to three aspects; physical privacy, mental or communicational privacy and informational privacy. The latter concerns journalists, and is breached when personal information is made public. She emphasises the importance of privacy to anyone’s ability to function in a society. Hence she posits a journalist’s ethical obligation to protect the privacy of others, regardless of the news values that may be conflicting.  Although there is no legal right to privacy in Australia (Solove, 2008), Sanders argues that it is an inherent human right, citing the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She explains that this ethical obligation to protect privacy has influenced all media codes of practice.

Moreover, Sanders argues that all humans have the right to privacy regardless of power or fame. However, she suggests that there is a trade-off between fame and the sacrifice of privacy; some obtain fame at the cost of privacy and some fall out of celebrity status by withholding their right to privacy.  These theoretical concepts are demonstrated in Star’s Secret Affair (King, 2012), The Shameless Airing of an Un-current Affair (Holmes, 2012) and Trial and Error (Doyle & McDermott, 2011).

King, M. (Writer). (2012, April 23). A Current Affair [Television broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Nine Network. 

Star’s Secret Affair, an episode of Chanel Nine’s television programme A Current Affair, investigated Leanne Edelston’s scandalous relationship with married author Clive James. A Current Affair is a somewhat reliable source of information; the facts that it reports are supported by direct interviews, though it does not withhold a reputable position in the Australian media (Moody, 2009) due the one-sidedness of its largely biased investigations. This nature of this text brings into question the ethical obligation of journalists to protect privacy, even when this contradicts an institution’s news values.

It relates to Ethics and Journalism (Sanders, 2003) in that it demonstrates both Sanders’ definition of privacy and her discussion on how this relates to the celebrity condition. While Ms Edelston was happy to reveal intimate personal information (photographs and emails) regarding her affair, Mr and Ms James clearly were not. Regardless of Ms Edelston’s permission, private information regarding Mr James’ life was made public without his permission. It was therefore, according to Sanders’ definition (2003), an invasion of privacy, albeit an indirect one. Further, this demonstrates the trade-off between fame and privacy that Sanders (2003) discusses. At the expense of private information, Ms Edelston adopted a quasi-celebrity status.

This only occurred due to Chanel Nine’s news values, which are focused on entertainment and generating shock through scandal. This starkly contrasts the news values of the ABC (balance, ethics and the responsibility to inform) (Harrington, 2008), as demonstrated in Four Corners’ episode Trial and Error (Doyle & McDermott, 2011) and Media Watch’s Shameless Airing of an Un-current Affair (Holmes, 2012).

Holmes, J. (Writer). (2012, April 30). Media Watch [Television broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 

The ABC’s Media Watch is hosted by revered journalist Jonathan Holmes, and acts to critique the Australian media. Mr Holmes’ esteemed position adds credibility to the opinions put forward by the programme, and these opinions are frequently backed up by reliable legal and academic sources.

The episode ‘The shameless airing of an un-current affair’ (Holmes, 2012) relates to ‘Star’s secret affair’ (King, 2012) in in a number of ways. The most obvious comparison is that both programmes are written for the medium of television with a short time available for broadcasting, and thus are presented using a similar generic short-form style, providing concise analysis and minimal investigation due to time constraints (Turner, 2005).

Most significantly, this episode of Media Watch is a critique of ‘Star’s secret affair.’ Holmes makes two key criticisms; firstly that the investigation was executed in poor taste and secondly that in its failure to protect the privacy of Mr James and his wife was unethical. Sanders’ (2003) definition of privacy is used to justify this argument. Furthermore, Holmes supports this by referencing the Commercial Television Code of Practice, suggesting that there was no identifiable public interest reason for the information to be broadcasted.

The ABC’s news values are focused on public information over entertainment and credibility over attention (Harrington, 2008), and this represents the link between this episode and Four Corners’ ‘Trial and Error’ (2011). This also contributes to the formal tone of both programmes.

Doyle, M & McDermott, Q. (Writers). (2011, November 3). Four Corners [Television broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The ABC’s Four Corners focuses on current affairs issues through investigative journalism. The episode ‘Trial and Error’ (Doyle & McDermott, 2011) investigates the conviction of Gordon Wood, sentenced to seventeen years in prison for the murder of Caroline Byrne. Four Corners is well-regarded for its investigative journalism (Hanson & Stuart, 2001), which implies the information it presents has clearly been thoroughly researched. Its credibility is established by interviews with many parties involved in the story, providing a balanced and justified perspective.

‘Trial and Error’ contrasts A Current Affair’s ‘Star’s secret affair’ (2012) in a number of ways. This is evidenced by the nature of the private information, and the means by which the information became public.  The content of ‘Trial and Error’ (2011) came largely from direct interviews given willingly by both parties involved in the case, providing ballance. In stark contrast, ‘Star’s secret affair’ (2012) exclusively investigated Ms Edelston’s rendition of events, and only contacted Mr James by ambushing him as he left his house, producing a one-sided story based on private information that Mr James did not give permission to be released.

The structure of Tiral and Error (Doyle & McDermott, 2011) is contrasted by the structure of both Star’s Secret Affair (King, 2012) and The Shamless airing of an un-current affair (Holmes, 2012). While Four Corners uses a long-form structure for deep analysis and extensive investigation into its feature stories (forty-five minute episodes), both A Current Affair and Media Watch use a shorter form (fifteen-minute episodes) (Turner, 2005).

APA Reference List 

Doyle, M & McDermott, Q. (Writers). (2011, November 3). Four Corners [Television broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Hanson, D. and Stuart, H., (2001). Failing the Reputation Management Test: The Case of BHP, the Big Australian. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(2), pp. 128-143

Harrington, S., (2008). Popular news in the 21st century: Time for a new critical approach? Sage Journals: Journalsim, 9(3), pp 266-284.

Holmes, J. (Writer). (2012, April 30). Media Watch [Television broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

King, M. (Writer). (2012, April 23). A Current Affair [Television broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Nine Network. 

Moody, K., (2009). Media scepticism, media diets and media landscapes: A consideration of US versus Australian political information environments. Presented at Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. Brisbane, QLD:  Queensland University of Technology Press.

Sanders, K., (2003). Ethics and Journalism. London: Sage Publications

Solve, D., (2008). Understanding Privacy. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Turner, G., (2005). Ending the Affair: The Decline of Television Current Affairs in Australia. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Whales Press. 

Taste vs Ethics (week 8)

This week we focused on differentiating between taste and ethics in the media. To the untrained eye, the difference between these is hazy. To those who inform the public, whether it be through either advertising or news, the ability to tell the difference is crucial.

Taste, by definition, is subjective and thus one cannot judge an aspect of the media on these grounds. An advertisement should therefore be judged in terms of ethics. Now we are getting philosophical; what is good and what is bad? 

There are three approaches to this. First there is deontology. Basically, this ethical paradigm defines ‘goodness’ as following the rules. This can easily be applied to the media; if it breaks the rules of advertising set in place then it is bad, and if not then it is fine. In my experience, philosophy has never been so simple. The codes regarding the ethics of media output include the MEAA (Media, Entertainment and Arts) code, the PRIA (Public Relations Institute of Australia) code and the AFA (Advertising Federation of Australia) code.

Perhaps the most famous approach to ethics is consequentialism; the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Personally I find that consequentialism’s flaws lie in the fact that the end always justifies the means, and that the concept of the ‘greatest good’ can easily be used to disempower minority groups.

The final approach is virtue ethics, which espouses the idea that ‘goodness’ (i.e happiness) comes from displaying certain virtues. These virtues consist of courage, justice, temperance and prudence.

Taste as a Tool of Marketing Enterprise 

The subjective nature of ‘taste’ makes it a versatile tool to be exploited at the discretion of advertisers. Many marketeers aim for the cusp between the realms of ‘bad taste’ and ‘unethical’. This generates just enough outrage for programs like A Current Affair to come running, mouths drawling, like hyenas to a carcass, consequently maximising the value of the advertisement. This manoeuvre is usually executed by employing a tactless innuendo or two.

 A tasteless tactic: even by adding these images to this blog, I am contributing to the mammoth value of these premeditatedly poor-taste ads. 

Evaluating Ethics

Ethics can sometimes be easy to assess. The above example could not be made any simpler; it advertises a genuinely unethical concept.  Taste doesn’t even enter into the equation; no matter what ethical paradigm you employ, displaying this ad is quite simply immoral.  It is rarely this easy, though.

Crossing the line between taste and ethics does not necessarily need to come from the subject matter. A perfectly legitimate product or service can be advertised in an unethical way:

Life insurance: unethical or just plain bad taste?, Vogue: unethically in good taste or ethically poor taste? Animal rights: a reasonable and ethical message or a tasteless and insensitive analogy? 

When a complex issue of ethics comes into question, it comes down to personality. Some will be offended by the above advertisements, and some will be perfectly fine with them. Taking a consequentialist perspective, what really needs to be considered is if the majority of viewers will be offended.

 In the above situation, I would say a significant number of views would indeed be offended. Our society has no ethical problem with life insurance, Vogue magazine or animal rights activists. The ethical conundrum in these ads comes from the way the ideas are portrayed. People probably won’t be too offended by the odd sexual innuendo, but describing a parent’s death as a family’s  ‘prince charming’, embodying feminine beauty and perfection as a malnourished model and likening my sausage sandwich to Hitler’s terrible acts of genocide is a different question entirely.   

Evaluating taste against ethics is a challenging but important skill for anyone who contributes to the media. It can mean the difference between a risqué and humorous innuendo in an effective advertisement, and a message that offends an audience of thousands that deserve the right to enjoy the media without such confrontation.