Community

Community ambivalence about privacy is demonstrated by what's claimed as the rise of the 'tabloid tv generation', with a supposedly insatiable appetite for information about the private lives of other people - whether celebrities or demons (eg terrorists and paedophiles).

In the near future this page will look at the media and community attitudes, questioning some claims about recent developments and considering mechanisms such as media self-regulation and anti-paparazzi legislation.

As a starting point for thinking about community 'ownership' of public figures see Leo Braudy's The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History (New York: Oxford Uni Press 86), Clay Calvert's Voyeur Nation: Media, Privacy & Peering in Modern Culture (Boulder: Westview 00), John Thompson's Political Scandal: Power & Visibility in the Media Age (London: Polity 00), Janna Malamud Smith's Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life (Reading: Perseus 97) and Richard Schickel's Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity in America (Chicago: Dee 00).

Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film & Television (New York: Oxford Uni Press88) edited by Larry Gross & John Stuart considers the intersection between privacy, free speech and intellectual property.

     the market for sensation

Although its fashionable to decry an invasive media - journalists often rate lower than used-car or insurance salesmen in consumer surveys - respect for privacy doesn't seem to extend to the lives of those enduring the 15 minutes of fame.

Jeannette Walls' Dish: How Gossip Became The News & The News Became Just Another Show (New York: Perennial 00) and Media Scandals: Morality and Desire in the Popular Culture Marketplace (New York: Columbia Uni Press 98) edited by James Lull & Stephen Hinerman offer an introduction to gossip in US media culture. There's a shorter but more thoughtful account in Tabloid Journalism & the Public Sphere (txt) by Anna Maria Jönsson & Henrik Örnebring. Keepers of the Flame: Literary Estates & the Rise of Biography (London: Faber 94) by Ian Hamilton extends the discussion in Smith's Private Matters.

Tabloid Journalism: an annotated bibliography of English-language sources (Westport: Greenwood 96) by Gerald Greenberg is of particular value. For media ethics see the EU-centred EthicNet, the Poynter Media Ethics Resources page and the discussion in Claude-Jean Bertrand's Media Ethics & Accountability Systems (Piscataway: Transaction 00).

For tabloids see I Watched A Wild Hog Eat My Baby! - A Colorful History of Tabloids and Their Cultural Impact (Amherst: Prometheus 01) by Bill Sloan, For Enquiring Minds: A Cultural Study of Supermarket Tabloids (Knoxville: Uni of Tennessee Press 99) by Elizabeth Bird and the deliciously neomarxist Grossed-Out Surgeon Vomits Inside Patient! An Insider's Look at Supermarket Tabloids (Venice: Feral House 97) by Jim Hogshire. Other insider accounts include Scooped! (New York: Columbia Uni Press 99) by David Krajicek, George Bernard's Inside The National Inquirer (Port Washington: Ashley 77) and Sally Taylor's interviews in Shock! Horror!: the Tabloids in Action (London: Bantam 91).

Neal Gabler's Winchell: Gossip, Power & the Culture of Celebrity (New York: Knopf 94) and Herman Klurfeld's Behind the Lines: The World of Drew Pearson (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall 68) complement Jack Anderson's Confessions of a Muckraker (New York: Random 79) and Drew Pearson's Diaries 1949-59 (New York: Holt Rinehart 74).

For tabloid/trash tv see Tabloid Television: Popular Journalism and the 'Other News' (New York: Routledge 98) by John Langer, Tabloid Baby: An Uncensored Account of Revolution That Gave Birth to 21st Century Television News Broadcasting (New York: Celebrity Books 99) by Burt Kearns and Live TV, Tellybrats & Topless Darts: the Uncut Story of Tabloid Television (London: Simon & Schuster 99) by Chris Horrie & Adam Nathan.

Michael Levine's The Princess & the Package: Exploring the Love-Hate Relationship Between Diana and the Media (Los Angeles: Renaissance 98) explored claims that Princess Diana was 'killed' by an intrusive media, suggesting that exploitation was consensual.

     restricting the media circus

We'll be highlighting industry self-regulation and government regulation in the near future. For the moment two starting points are Deborah Kirkman's thesis Whither the Australian Press Council: The Formation, Function & Future of the Council regarding the fierce bad rabbit known as the APC and Richard Shannon's A Press Free & Responsible (London: John Murray 01) regarding the APC's UK counterpart.

The Privacy guide points to studies of privacy principles, reports and specific legislation in Australia and overseas. A major theme is the tension between community and personal interests.

Lord Justice Glidewell in the 1991 Kaye v Robertson case criticised media intrusions and commented that "It is well-known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person’s privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals". The 1997 UK Privacy Act subsequently offered some protection but, like the Australian Act, still relies heavily on media self-regulation.

In Australia the November 2001 High Court decision as part of litigation by Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd against the ABC (Lenah sought an injunction to prevent the national broadcaster from showing unauthorised film of possums being slaughtered in its abattoir) potentially opens the way for a test case regarding damages for unjustified invasion of privacy. The Court commented that

having regard to current conditions in this country, and developments of the law in other common law jurisdictions, the time is ripe for consideration whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be recognised in this country, or whether the legislatures should be left to determine whether provisions for a remedy for it should be made

In the US the First Amendment has been invoked to protect online and offline media coverage of personal lives - Matt Drudge for example has been criticised as merrily peddling unsubstantiated rumours. Most restrictions have been local, such as California's 1998 Personal Privacy Protection Act, promoted as the first US law against overly aggressive paparazzi ('stalkerazzi'). Key Supreme Court decisions are those in the 1974 Cantrell v Forest City case, 1967
Time v Hill case and the 1975 Cox Broadcasting Corp. v Cohn case.

The most effective response to media invasions of privacy may, of course, simply involve not favouring the particular publication with your eyeballs.

     e-stranger danger

Community ambivalence is also evident in proposals for public access to crime registers under the auspices of law enforcement agencies or 'concerned citizen' groups.

In analysphere we've highlighted debate about Megan's Law sites and initiatives such as Australia's CrimeNet, a for-profit site that offered information about criminal convictions on the basis that "If somebody has handed over their civil rights by being involved in a major crime then that is their fault and the public has a right to know".

The site is the latest of a succession of print and online publications identifying criminals or alleged criminals. Another example is Deborah Coddington's Australian Paedophile & Sex Offender Index (Sydney: Mount View Trust 97), criticised in relation to claims that it identified convictions but not successful appeals. And, dare we say it, even newspapers get things wrong.

Such indexes raise substantial questions about the 'ownership' of information, privacy and the nature of Commonwealth/state Spent Convictions legislation. As the Australian Law Reform Commission's 1987 report on Spent Convictions and Nigel Waters' paper (PDF) on Implications for Privacy Laws suggest, we've moved away from branding people with a scarlet letter 'A'. It would be unfortunate if there's widespread acceptance of the net as a new mechanism for permanently marking those with a conviction - or those merely suspected of bad behaviour.

There's been little detailed research about community attitudes to 'criminal history' information, online publication and privacy. One major study is the 2001 Public Attitudes toward Uses of Criminal History Information report (PDF) from the US National Consortium for Justice Information & Statistics (NCJIS). The report concludes that although there is substantial support for public availability of particular categories of records where there is a perceived public benefit/safety rationale, there is significantly lower support for more 'private' uses. In general, respondents favour access by employers and government agencies but do no support access to arrest-only (or arrest without conviction) records. The findings are consistent with a range of studies about US consumer attitudes to privacy.

Potential misuse of personal information was identified as a major issue, with 90% expressing concern (64% were "very concerned", 25% were "somewhat" concerned and 10% had little/no concern). 38% reported that their privacy had been invaded by a business (25%), a charitable, political, or nonprofit organization (13%), a law enforcement agency (12%) or a government tax, social service or licensing agency (10%).

52% believe that anyone's credit reports may be purchased via the net, 49% though criminal conviction records were for sale online. Approximately 4 in 10 adults believed - correctly or otherwise - that they can obtain anyone's Social Security number (42%), credit card number (39%), or arrest record (38%). 36% believe that bank balances are for sale online. (As a point of reference consider the figures in the Goertzel study cited later in this profile).

70% reported that the criminal justice system (courts, lawyers, police, prisons) respects the civil liberties and constitutional rights of suspects. Six out of 10 reported having had their fingerprints taken, e.g for military service or a job application. 87% felt that was appropriate.

The report suggests that, when not fretting about whether Elvis was rubbed out by the FBI or abducted by aliens in search of credit data, most US citizens view criminal history records as confidential information and favor some restriction in access. Surprisingly, given taditionally high levels of distrust of government, most of Westin's respondents are more wary of business misuse.

47% supposedly prefer a "partially open system" in which only conviction records are freely available. 37% support a restricted system, where only selected users have access. 12% favour a wholly open system in which arrest and conviction records are freely available. 90% preferred State agencies not to web-publish criminal history information that is already a matter of public record, for example that has appeared in newspapers.

Most support some access to conviction records by nongovernment entities for noncommercial purposes. 9 out of 10 would allow restricted access to conviction records by potential employers, with 55% indicating that access should be tied to the nature of the position, such as handling money or dealing with children. Most support at least some access by organisations that work with children (88%), by the defence forces (82%) and insurance companies investigating fraud (76%), although there's markedly lower support for banks (32%) and credit card providers (21%).

In line with studies highlighted in our Privacy guide, there is strong support for US business implementation of three "fair information practices" governing maintenance and use of criminal history records. 89% for example consider it "very important" to have a right to review and correct records, with 74% wanting an impartial procedure for resolving complaints about misuse of data.

   next page (fiction)