Balancing Privacy and Press Freedom

Professor Ken McKinnon discusses issues arising from Adjudication No. 1117.

The famous newspaper proprietor, Lord Northcliffe, once said ' ... news is what somebody, somewhere, wants to suppress; everything else is advertising.' Newspapers are supposed to report the news. Should they freely report everything or are some things intrinsically private? If so, how can the community be sure the two considerations are being fairly balanced?

Are public figures fair game? After all, it was the skill and persistence of the press that revealed Peter Reith's carelessness with his official telephone card and the resulting improper expenditure of public funds. Naturally he wriggled and squirmed uncomfortably in spotlight of the press, but as a Minister in the federal government could not claim that the matters were private or were being improperly aired. But, you might say, private citizens should not be caught in that glare.

An adjudication arising from a recent set of complaints that came before the Australian Press Council suggests that it is possible successfully to strike an acceptable balance between the obligations of the press to report the news fully and fearlessly and the privacy rights of citizens.

On Australia Day a Perth couple won a $30 million Powerball jackpot in Australia's largest lottery win. They sought and obtained anonymity from the Lotteries Commission.

Of course, they would have to have been naively optimistic had they believed that anonymity could be maintained. A journalist on instructions from his newspaper quickly identified the winners and a story was put on the News Ltd wires. The report identified members of the family, including their child, by their given names (but not surnames) and suburb of residence and included images of the husband, their house and the family car.

It was published in the Brisbane Courier Mail, the Hobart Mercury, the Northern Territory News and the Adelaide Advertiser on Saturday 3 February. The editors of News Ltd's biggest circulation papers, the Daily Telegraph in Sydney and the Herald Sun in Melbourne, did not publish the story, perhaps indicating uncertainty among editors concerning the issues involved.

Following publication of the report and realising anonymity was no longer an option, the couple took advice on handling the media. Subsequently they held an open press conference in which they discussed their feelings and revealed their identities.

They did not complain officially to the Council about the earlier coverage. But a number of readers around Australia did complain. Those readers claimed the reportage displayed a flagrant disregard for the privacy and safety of the family.

How should the Press Council evaluate the complaints? It turned to two of its principles. One asserts the paramount principle of the freedom of the press. The other asserts that individuals unwittingly involved in the news have a right to privacy that is only lessened where there is an obvious or significant public interest in the information.

There is no denying the intense interest in the Powerball lottery. It was the biggest held in Australia. The winners were undoubtedly newsworthy. But the media's uncertainty about the handling of the issue is revealed not only in the uneven spread of newspapers publishing the report and the range of information published but also in the fact that it was only published in states other than where the family resided.

The Press Council, which comprises industry, journalist and public members, debated the matter keenly. Members had in mind the tradition in Australia of reporting lottery winners, the intense public interest in knowing about the people involved, the feelings of the winners, and newspaper obligations to report the news.

Some believed that selective publication or failure to publish just because those involved might not like the publicity would certainly indicate a failure of newspapers to live up to their obligations. Others believed that newspapers had to publish because of the likelihood that the print media would be scooped by Internet sites that subscribe to no principles of privacy. News breaking on the Internet is an increasing consideration for newspapers. Others stressed the rights of individuals to choose to stay out of the news.

In the end the Council upheld the complaints that the report, as published, was invasive and intruded unnecessarily.

'The published report paid lip service to the protection of the family's privacy. It not only failed to do so but diminished the integrity of the news process. It included details which, in view of the amount of money involved, should have been left out. The newspapers could have fulfilled their duty to the public interest without the detail that crossed the line into the winner's rights'.

The papers concerned were obliged to publish the adjudication of the Council (the text is published on page 15 of this issue and is on the Council's website) with appropriate prominence, in the light of the prominence in the original report, as soon as practicable. (All have done so.)

This case shows that it is possible to balance press freedom with a responsible attitude to privacy. Industry members of the Press Council made it clear that in addition to their balancing privacy and press freedom commitment to Press Council privacy principles their newspapers already have privacy codes to guide editors.

Each complaint of this kind poses tricky questions of balance and fairness. Members of the Council, who are fierce in the asserting the obligation of the press to report the news without fear or favour, likewise have a deep understanding of the costs to individuals of the glare of publicity. Although that is what you would expect, it is reassuring to see that balance exemplified.

What may not be equally obvious and yet even more important is how keen newspapers, editors and journalists are to avoid complaints to the Press Council. Humble Pie is not a preferred item on their menu. If a slice comes to them they accept it with a grimace and obvious determination to avoid more serves. They hate the public exposure (and the notice taken by other newspapers) themselves. The complaints-process is a sensitive and effective everyday way to balance freedom of the press and other valid community concerns.

Professor Ken McKinnon

See also
Index on privacy matters on this website
Adjudication No. 1117

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2001 Index

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.