Week 8: In the Public Interest: Public V Private

The topic in brief
This topic highlights arguments in justifying the media's reporting on issues of public interest. It is about drawing the line between what is right for the public and what is right for the private individual/organisation. Perhaps the media has a duty in "telling it how it is" because the media act as a mirror of social reality. It is up to the public to interpret what has been given to them. Journalists must therefore be very careful with their choice of words when reporting sensitive issues because interpretation is shaped by language. An interesting question for discussion brought up in this week's reading is: Should media reports be modified to minimise any possible harm to those who are the subjects of those reports? Sometimes it is inevitable for subjects to be harmed when journalists tell it how it is. The best voice is thus the neutral voice. Journalists should not instigate matters despite the strong social resentment towards a crime for example. Therefore, by staying neutral, posible harm can be minimised without making a conscious effort to do so.

In this week's seminar by Anthony, Edward, and Julius
I think Anthony's stance on individual choice shows the extent of power journalists have and too often that power is misused or exploited for financial gains. There is also the self-delusion of personal interest being public interest. Even the code of ethics is ambiguous, allowing room for journalists to go around the laws. Then again, ethics is intangible and intrinsic. Ethics cannot be painted black and white but takes the form of shades of grey.

Edward revealed the possible shades of grey as three ethical philosophies: deontological ethics or absolutism, teleological ethics whereby ends justify means, and situation ethics where it all depends. I think the three ethical philosophies can be ranked into levels. The simplest way to justify oneself is by adopting situation ethics. We do what we do by looking at the possibilities and the opportunities we can make use of. I think journalists need to go beyond situation ethics and adopt teleological ethics with ends that correlate with public interest and protection of privacy, of course.

Julius used Archard's (1995) thought-provoking definition of privacy in his presentation which is "a person's control over oneself and to one's personal information". It implies that the breach of privacy is equivalent to the person's loss of control over himself and his personal data. So if that happens, the person's life is practically over. Unfortunately, the weight of my words is that of a feather to journalists who are forced to or keen on breaching privacy to report in the public's interest because if they do not do so, then their careers are over. For some, their careers are their life as well.

Conclusion
This is why we love Spider-Man -- he and the villains after him are the epitomy of the struggle between good and evil within oneself.