+44-7967507187

Where does “the public interest” end and “what the public is interested in” begin?

Journalists from Britain’s now defunct News of the World used fake identities and a string of lies to expose three Pakistani cricketers for taking bribes to make deliberate mistakes in international matches. The end here certainly justified the means and exposure of the three was definitely “in the public interest”.

But it is hard to argue that it is in the interest of anyone for the public to know that Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs – who earns his living kicking a ball around, not showcasing his perfect family life – once had an extra-marital fling. “Interesting”, perhaps, but it does nothing to improve our material well-being.

All this makes the ongoing Leveson inquiry into the skullduggery of the British tabloid press fascinating theatre for students of the media and media ethics.

At one extreme some admittedly self-interested tabloid grandees have been stretching “the public interest” argument; they claim we have a right to know about the financial affairs,  health, leisure pursuits and above all the sex lives of anyone who makes a living out of “being in the public eye”. That elastic category includes anyone in politics, religion, professional sport, the entertainment industry and, of course, the royal family.

Not many newspaper readers would go that far, however much we might enjoy the tittle-tattle. But nor would we accept the argument at the other extreme that – lawbreaking apart – anyone should have an automatic veto over which areas of their private life the tabloids can report.

Then there are the grey areas. If a singer allows a magazine to photograph her wedding, does that entitle tabloids to photograph her dancing in a nightclub three months later with someone else? If a sportsman gasps out his delight to a tv camera after crossing the finishing line, does that give any journalist the right to investigate his personal investments?

Few would deny that a free press is needed to keep our rulers honest, and as things stand, that means allowing journalists – even annoyingly self-important and hypocritical journalists – to decide what is in “the public interest”.

And whatever Leveson concludes, that situation is unlikely to change significantly. The alternative, some new form of legal restraint of the press, raises too many spectres of censorship and totalitarianism for the British political establishment.

Equally significant is that, while politicians huff and puff at actual law-breaking by journalists, too many of them have benefited from the tabloid press’s relentlessly populist agenda and will hope to go on doing so.  So expect a lot of noise about a more responsible and well-behaved press. Followed, after a pause, by business as usual.

Advice to potential targets: keep your trousers on and hire a media consultant.

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain consultant

Share This