Is the private really confidential?

In light of the recent Della Bosca sex scandal (Visit http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/01/2672539.htm if you need to get up to date) I think it is an appropriate time to discuss when the public domain stops and the private one begins.

The individual’s private space is the area where he/she communicates confidentially with his/her social environment. This could be interpreted as anywhere from the bedroom to the conversation between a husband and wife at a café. The public space is the space where the individual interacts with people outside of the private sphere, the space where the individual’s identity is both constructed and expressed. For example, the workplace, the street or the sporting field. Past public indiscretions have taken place in many of these different places yet have still made the morning paper.

“There was Bert Newton’s drink-driving charge, Naomi Robson swearing on the Today Tonight set in leaked outtakes, Video Hits host Axle Whitehead exposing himself at the 2006 ARIA awards, Dancing with the stars judge Todd McKenney’s arrest for drug possession and Biggest Loser host Ajay Rochester’s escape from welfare fraud conviction” (extract from The Guide, Sydney Morning Herald, 24-30 August 2009).

While Newton’s charge took place in the public space it has no impact on his professional life, only his persona, while Axle Whitehead conducted his indiscretion whilst at work. While these two different scenarios were both in the public sphere it could be argued that Newton’s was not necessarily in the public’s interest to know. So where is the line drawn?

According to The Guide advertisers look directly to blogs to decide on the impact a celebrities’ indiscretion will have on their market. In 2007 Lord Browne chief executive of BP resigned after it became public knowledge that he had lied to the high court about a relationship with a man. While his sexuality did not in any way impact on his ability to do his job and while this does seem to be a private sphere issue the story was told because he lied in the public sphere of the court. The overwhelming thoughts of the blogosphere was that his sexuality was not an issue however his ability o tell a lie was, yet one could not have happened without he other. Comments included:
Comments: 190
• Lord Browne's sexuality is entirely irrelevant to his downfall. The pertinent issue is the fact that he believed that he could steamroller a lie through the judicial process. Thankfully, he failed, as did Archer and Aitkin.
Iain
on May 12, 2007
at 11:39 AM
• There is a very basic and simple policy; If one uses the media to publish positive points to forward ones career, status, popularity, then one must be in the position to accept negative headlines, irrespective of the subject matter. Also, if you are paid from public resources, you must expect to receive some adverse publicity. Browne was proved to have lied. Strip him of his title and imprison him like other perjurors.
Graham Spurrier
on May 07, 2007
at 05:52 AM
(Visit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1550233/Should-the-sexuality-of-people-in-public-life-be-kept-private.html to view further comments).


Spurrier brings up another debate for the publishing of private information, that celebrities cannot use the media only when it suits them. If you rely on the public for survival/popularity then you should expect your down falls to be made public also.

In my personal opinion I don’t think there is a clear line between public and private, it is the journalist’s job to act ethically. What do you think?