Public figure by choice or not?

A few weeks ago I discussed privacy and the public interest. I found this to be an interesting and highly debated subject so I decided to go a little more in depth.
Contemporary society and contemporary media is drowned by publicity and publicity seeking individuals. Paradoxically this same society values privacy to the point that it congers much public debate. The argument arises that privacy differs when an individual is a public figure, such as a politician or celebrity, compared to a person thrust into the public eye through such things as relations with public figures or surviving a disaster. With the media’s aim to inform, entertain and educate it is sometimes difficult to uphold strict social privacy rules whilst at the same time fulfil their social role as the fourth estate.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy”(Besley, 1992 p.78). From this document it can be assumed that privacy is considered socially valuable. Legally speaking, “Situations that qualify as invasions of privacy vary depending on what a reasonable person would deem offensive, and what does not constitute a legitimate public concern.” (Booth, 1996). It is illegal for a photographer to take a picture of an individual in their bathroom, yet not illegal in their backyard because this is not considered a private domain by a ‘reasonable person’. Hence, privacy has no uniform definition but it does have an important role in society which is reflected by the way society values privacy.
According to Biernatzki privacy, “is inherently a social concept, important mostly because without it there is no conception of personhood”(2004). This is a view agreed with by Sissela Bok who believes, “Privacy meets a need: it offers the self protection against vulnerabilities by providing comfort and control and by strengthening the sense of identity” (Besley, 1992 p.81). While these arguments establish a necessity for privacy there are numerous individuals in society who seem to experience privacy on a sliding scale.
Archard believes privacy is a social construct and that there is little justification for breaching an individual’s privacy whether they are a public figure or not. “There is no warrant for thinking that a person loses his privacy in virtue of becoming a public person…Most interestingly, the public’s interest in knowing what public figures do in private-an interest which print gossip serves-should not be dismissed as morally valueless” (Archard, 1998 p.93). The one justification Archard does agree with is that of matters of interest to the public. The argument here is that when justifying invasions of privacy three reasons are commonly cited:
1. the private information of public figures impacts on the public. The 1977 Court of Appeal said, “those who seek and welcome publicity…cannot complain about invasions of privacy which show them in an unfavourable light” (Archard, 1998 p.87). Archard quickly denotes this argument by using the example of private people thrust into the spot light by surviving a disaster. At no point did these individuals sanction their public life and hence at no point agreed upon publicity.
2. Invasion of privacy due to public interest. Here the question arises, does the public need to know the morality of a public figure? Archard believes this to be “self-serving rationalism”(1998, p.90) because moral significance and motivation differs between ones personal and public life.
3. That which is of interest to the community also known as gossip is a justification for invasion of privacy. Gossip has the capacity to define community unity by continuously engraining community values and by creating a sense of egalitarianism. Due to the need to see the ordinariness in everyone it is public figures, whether by choice or involuntarily in the public eye, that are the subjects of such gossip. Whilst this seems like a simplistic and passively accepting way of looking at the issue of privacy and individuals, this belief can be seen when looking at the amount of gossip magazines that are currently economically thriving.
The basis of Besley’s argument is “when some information about an individual that he or she would prefer to keep private should be in the public domain, then putting it there is not overriding that individual’s right to privacy because no such right ever existed”(1992 p.77). In other words whenever invasion is justified then no privacy existed in the first place therefore there is no legitimate reason to invade anyone’s privacy. Besley does however address specifically why both groups are fair game for the media to report on. “All aspects of the exercise of power must be open to public scrutiny”(Besley, 1992 p.78). Besley believes for this reason personalities and public figures that have power in society, due to their high profiles which were created and sustained by publicity, are rightly subjects of intense media attention. In becoming a personality the media can assume consent of publication. On the other hand people thrust into the media have been involved in events which are public matters and therefore need to be reported on. Yet, unlike personalities, they have the right to refuse consent for interview, information etc. This issue of consent comes down to the Faustian Contract (Besley, 1992 p.84). This is an un-written contract that public figures who knowingly put themselves in front of the media cannot falsely claim privacy when press turns bad.
I personally believe there is a difference between the privacy of public figures and involuntary public figures. This difference comes down to consent and relies on the ethics of an editor to decide whether certain information should be made public. In the end 'Privacy' is a social construct and can be just as easily de-constructed.

What do you think?

Sources

Archard, D. 'Privacy, the public interest, and a prurient public', in Kieran, M (ed), Media Ethics, (Routledge, 1998), pp 82-96.

ABC. ‘Cheryl Kernot and the Politics of the Personal’ [Transcript], Media Report 4 July 2002.

ABC. 'What is "Public Interest"?' [Transcript], Media Report 13 Feb 1997.

Belsey, A. 'Privacy, Publicity and Politics', in Belsey, A & Chadwick, R, Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, (Routledge, 1992), pp 77-91.

Biernatzki, W. "LaMay, Craig L. (Ed.). Journalism and the Debate over Privacy." Communication Research Trends 23.3 (Fall 2004): 33(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Retrieved 8 Oct. 2008.

Booth,L. "Photos of Jemima and Imran Khan having sex." New Statesman (1996) 130.4563 (Nov 12, 2001): 63. Expanded Academic ASAP. Retrieved 8 Oct. 2008.

Farr, M & Barlass, T. 'In the garden of their home, a senator and his wife confront a scandal', Daily Telegraph 7 February 1997.