In the public interest: public V private

It is almost the crux of journalism itself. Public V private. To report or not to report? What's right and what's wrong. Where is the line drawn and why?

The MEAA provide a Code of Ethics for journalists but as Luke Coates pointed out in today's presentation, he sees them as a "useless wank".

"They sound nice but these guidelines effectively mean nothing," Mr Coates said.

"They are a useless wank."

In this week's reading (Chapter 12: Public Interest, Private Lives) Ian Richards does not quite go that far but he does criticise the code.

"While many have disputed this interpretation even the many journalists who base their ethical approach on it would have difficulty applying such provisions because they are so vaguely worded (191, Richards)."

I suppose this is partly due to the fact that the media needs guidelines, not rules, so they can bend them when they see fit. Maybe a bit harsh but take the recent Australian Law Reform Commission's massive report on privacy and The Australian's Media section comment.

"'Privacy threat to celebrity coverage' was the headline in the Media supplement of The Australian on July 31 for its lead story, which began: 'The celebrity media industry could be thrown into turmoil by moves to restrict reporting on public figures'," wrote Matthew Ricketson in Privacy Debate Needs a Wider Focus (theage.com.au, August 13, 2008).

Furthermore, Ricketson reflects, "Public cynicism about the news media is already widespread; the pity is that the concerns expressed by the Right to Know coalition about the proposed law against invasion of privacy are, in many ways, valid".

This moves into the definition of news itself and the move towards celebrity driven news both online and in newspapers themselves.

Take the reporting of triple gold medalist Stephanie Rice (pictured) by nineMSN after her swimming commitments in Beijing. The Michael Phelps kiss issue, the break with fellow Aussie swimmer Eamon Sullivan and her every party move. Is this right? Even prior to the games when she was caught in that police uniform through Facebook photos. Is this right? Actually, is it right that I have used the image again? Isn't that just as bad (Even though it was three of the first five Goggle images that appeared)?

But this is another issue all together.

"Balancing the public interest with people's right to privacy is a complex issue, and those in newsrooms know sometimes wrong decisions are made," Ricketson writes.

Richards concludes, "In short, the debate over media intrusion into individual privacy is far from over."

These concluding points are very true. The public V private issue is a difficult one and it is far from over. And this will continue to be the case regardless of what technology or format journalists are working with.

Any thoughts?