I received an interesting phone call from the News of the World the other day asking if I would be prepared to go on the media and argue against the need for privacy legislation! I am opposed to a privacy law as I have explained elsewhere and it was clear to me that the News of the World knew they were about to lose the Mosley case.
They had guessed,quite correctly, that I would be critical of the invasion of Mosley’s privacy as in my view it did not involve any over riding public interest. The sexual activities involved was between consenting adults and was in private and I see no case for press invasion.
I told them I would be prepared to go on the media and argue against privacy legislation but that I would also say they were wrong in this case. They accepted that.
There was a time when I was battling for better protection for the public from inaccuracy in the press when no newspaper, let alone the News of the World, would have asked me to defend them. Times must have changed!
Lord Soley,
Having recently read Nick Davies’ book ‘Flat Earth News’, it is clear that many journalists already avoid taking any real risks digging for stories and conducting investigative journalism as the cost / benefit when considering the risk vs reward of increased sales versus a trip to the libel courts is putting them off.
There has been a lot of talk, understandably, about the Mosley case, but the efforts of ‘Sch..’ you know how and Carter-Ruck is already putting the frighteners on many stories.
Aah, Carter-Ruck, or as Private Eye call them… no, I don’t need to spell it out.
Chez Tizzy had a heated debate (as usual) on this subject. I don’t care about the consensual sex lives of others, nor do I care if they tried a spliff in their teens, or had a parking ticket last week.
However, there does seem to be double standards when we bloggers can, say, call the PM nasty names, whether valid or not, as part of our freedom of expression.
One of the main problems is that Mosley is rich enough to sue and force a retraction from the media, not normally available to the average person who may find themselves on the front pages through no fault of their own.
Like it or not, gossip about Mosley or my neighbour will wind its way to willing listeners/readers; not much of a step between them and ‘radicalised Islamists’.
I have noticed that video media often has the face of an individual blurred out when they object to being viewed on air. By doing this the owner of the image is saying please observe my privacy.
So what price do we place upon privacy?
Something I have considered for some while now is that of copyright and ownership of personal images taken by third parties. The current position is that an image of anybody caught on camera is by default associated with the public domain unless they have been fortunate in suppressing it; often it is too late.
Such images are used by businesses that generate profits. Whilst the level of intrusion in the past has been low it no longer is the case and huge profits are to be earned as a result of the default position.
To have it the other way around where a business has to obtain permission from all individuals caught in frame now seems desirable. It would not however be pragmatic, as the camera owner could never publish because not everybody could be contacted for his or her permission.
But what if the individuals caught in frame were characters that a business could guarantee to make profits from? Individuals in show business, politicians, royal family and so on.
I do have considerable sympathy with any individual who has to suffer the barrage of media intrusion, which can be exhilarating for some and terrifying to others. I suppose given my feelings on this we should have some sort of privacy law but it would be extremely difficult to craft a good one.
A delimiter might be whether the image was used by a business to generate profits. Given the difficulty it should not deter consideration of such a law from taking place.
I feel that, given the nature of press (and other operators’) intrusion into peoples’ private lives without regard to what is justified, a law is the best way forward. If British culture were different…