Quite possibly many journalists have struggled with this issue for many years. Its either more copies for the newspaper or a preservation of the privacy of whoever it is. Many journalists have gone past privacy issues of the person or organization in question, and changed the worlds of others, sometimes even the world itself. Most notable privacy issues involve the Watergate scandal involving the then-US president Robert Nixon, to the countless paparazzi with celebrities, and sex scandals which tabloid newspapers print with gusto.
So where's the limit? honestly, i do not know. every journalist as a different threshold ethically, but in my opinion the most important factor to note would be how important would the story be to your audience. If it involves a matter of government corruption, it probably would be essential to break the story to the audience. A journalist's job is to be the gatekeeper of information and the choice of which information to give to the audience. Therefore, i would say if it involves the audience to a large scale, privacy shouldn't be the issue.
The same theory cannot be put to action where celebrities are concerned. To be famous, it is only natural that people would want to know more about their lives. And being famous only allows more scrutiny as the older generation would want to know more about the "idols" their children are listening to. therefore, every scandal wouldn't be small.
what does it mean for us journalists? can we delve deeper into the celebrities, just because we can? or do we remember our audience? i remember a previous module i had took that posed this exact question. our professor then, prof steve mcilwaine (i can't remember how to spell it for the life of me) answered it succinctly. privacy or sales? "it boils down to who you're working for. if you're working for the newspaper, sales." so yeah, my answer to privacy would boil down to the sales that i may achieve, if it does not impinge on my ethics and my editor. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment