PressEthic

Yesterday’s New York Times reported on a proposed bill in Ireland that would help celebrities protect themselves against unflattering and intrusive media coverage. Its most crucial contribution would be a formal definition of “privacy” that could be used in court cases against journalists. The law would also make it illegal to use a person’s “likeness, name or voice” for financial benefit if proper consent was not obtained. Finally, if passed, it would make the issuing of injunctions possible before publication and in a courtroom kept off-limits to the public.

No matter how one feels about sensation journalism, representatives of the press are not likely to be happy about an attempt to legally restrain their professional rights.

In its report on the issue, the New York Times expressed much concern through the words of its chosen sources:

"The editor’s life will be hell under this law,” said Frank Cullen, director of the National Newspapers of Ireland, a body representing the newspaper industry. “The rich and powerful will basically get help in keeping things out of the public arena.”

The article also highlights the potentially wide-reaching scope of the proposed law. In the age of wired news, even a seemingly local legal barrier can have a worldwide impact.

“The proposed law could have an impact well beyond Ireland, as celebrities increasingly shop for favorable jurisdictions for libel or invasion-of-privacy suits.

It would have an immediate effect on the many British newspapers that publish Irish editions, as well as on news organizations that print outside the country and even those circulating in Ireland via the Internet.

“This law would respect no borders,” said Simon McAleese, a lawyer based in Dublin who represents numerous media companies. “A U.S. or French newspaper sued in Ireland for breach of privacy would end up paying in their own home country, even if they have no assets in Ireland.”

In its wording, the law appears to take into account the obsessive nature of celebrity journalism that treats photos of movie stars sunbathing as front-page news. According to Simon McAleese, “the journalist must prove the surveillance [of a celebrity] involved gathering news for the purpose of discussing a subject of public importance.”

The idea seems fair—after all, it may help the public focus their attentions on more important phenomena than Britney Spears’ choice of footwear.

Representatives interviewed by the Times, however, do not seem to agree.

“The problem is that stars and even politicians now get attention by selectively showing their private life in ways that they can control,” said Christoph Fiedler of Berlin, chairman of the legal affairs committee of the European Federation of Magazine Publishers. “If you need their consent for any image, the result is propaganda-style reporting.”

As always, restrictive legal barriers are likely to cause controversy. Even if the proposed law has arisen from the over-the top behavior of money-hungry paparazzi and celebrity reporters, it can undesirably affect the careers of even the most legitimate journalists. When it comes to public figures demonstrating questionable behaviors, where is the line drawn between issues of “public importance” and celebrity harassment? How much is the public entitled to know? Should we know about a presiden’t sex life, but not about a movie director’s anti-Semitic comments? Which, in the end, will be more likely to enrich our understanding of our world? Most importantly, who is most fit to make this judgment call?

New York Times article