<p>The publication specialised in what is called “gutter journalism” and it displayed a distinct fondness for sex scandals and celebrity gossip. Its critics derogatorily nicknamed it ‘Screws of the World’. But the recent scandal surrounding the NOTW, which revealed that its reporters had illegally hacked into voicemail messages of celebrities, politicians and victims of crime and their insidious association with politicians and policemen, has provoked an unprecedented wave of public outrage across the world. <br /><br />Politicians, representatives of civil society and large sections of the media as well have not just turned their back on the organisation that printed the now-closed NOTW but also on this genre of crudely commercial and sensational journalism. The episode holds important lessons for media professionals everywhere, including India, about the need to adhere to ethical norms of truthfulness, fairness, balance and objectivity while purveying information. The recent set of incidents relating to the NOTW underscores the importance of the need for journalists to be sensitive and responsible while reporting. Further, media personnel cannot consider themselves to be above the law.<br /><br />Core of media ethics<br /><br />The sheer scale of the hacking by NOTW staffers – there is reportedly a list of over 4,000 possible targets of hacking – and the revelation of corrupt links between journalists and policemen are in themselves reason for great concern. What is also lamentable is that what are considered acceptable levels of intrusion into an individual’s privacy were grossly over-reached. Privacy is defined as “the individual’s right to be left alone”. Journalism often involves taking difficult decisions to draw a line between the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. The tension that exists between these two principles is at the core of media ethics.<br /><br />Depending on the context, we tolerate instances of what may be considered extreme intrusions of privacy while in other cases, we deem them unacceptable. For example, most sting operations employ methods which are technically illegal and would be objectionable if it were not for the nature of the information being sought. Hidden camera footage and secret recordings form the meat of the evidence on which many a powerful and corrupt official has been held accountable. <br /><br />Tehelka’s Operation West End, for example, exposed the culture of bribery in the Ministry of Defence and led to the resignation of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes. This was accomplished by setting up a fake company and secretly filming officials and politicians without their knowledge. Similarly, the public airing of private conversations between journalists and lobbyist Niira Radia revealed the unseemly links between the media, big business and politics. <br /><br />The fact that these recordings could be said to have invaded the privacy of the individuals concerned was in this instance substantially overridden by the larger public interest at stake in the information that was revealed. <br /><br />It is significant that although it was known as early as 2006 that phone hackings were being done by people engaged by the News of the World, the episode escalated into a full-blown scandal after it was revealed that the victims of hacking included Milly Dowler, a murdered teenage schoolgirl, and the families of victims of the 7/7 bombings in the London Underground. There is an implicit sliding scale if a comparison is made between invading the privacy of celebrities and politicians, on the one hand, and that of innocent victims or ordinary citizens, on the other. Whereas it may be contended that for celebrities and politicians, invasion of privacy is part of the process of having become famous (or notorious), a grieving family member’s privacy is sacrosanct and there is no question that such individuals deserve to be left alone by the media. <br /><br />Aarushi vs Milli Dowler<br /><br />Nonetheless, murder victims, who by definition cannot defend themselves, have in the past been treated extremely insensitively by the media. For example, the way in which a section of the Indian media covered 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar’s murder in May 2008 was highly unethical, putting out unsubstantiated rumours as fact and publishing information on private aspects of her and her family’s lives. Drawing the line between the appropriate and the inappropriate can be contentious. <br /><br />The case of Milly Dowler is relatively uncontroversial, in that most people would agree that the intrusion on the privacy of her family was unwarranted. Other instances are not as clear-cut. The private lives of celebrities are in fact constantly being violated in order to sell newspapers and television programmes, and this practice is tolerated. This may be because it is felt that in exchange for the life of privilege they enjoy, by becoming public figures, their right to privacy can justifiably be eroded. Ethically, however, it is unclear why this should be the case. <br /><br />The practice of the paparazzi has been criticised, and not only by celebrities. After Lady Diana and Dodi Al Fayed’s death in a car accident in Paris, many blamed the paparazzi at their heels for causing the crash. Whether this explanation is true or not can be debated, but it highlighted the invasion of privacy that celebrities have to put up with. Does the public have a right to know about facts which have nothing to do with the public functions of prominent people? <br /><br />Some argue that the public is entitled to “all” information regarding its leaders and role-models. For example, when Kate Moss was caught snorting cocaine on camera, the media argued that as a role model for young people, they had a duty to expose her. However, by publicising her actions, were journalists warning the youth about the dangers of cocaine use, as they argued, or were they simply hoping to sell more newspapers? <br /><br />Judgements made on what is and what is not ethical depend on specific details of a situation. Many of those who have rightfully been incensed by the recent revelations relating to the NOTW would defend another organisation that is also headed by an Australian like Murdoch. Julian Assange, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks, is one of the leading proponents of the need for more transparency in public life and his organisation has published classified documents in order to expose unethical government behaviour. The documents, in many instances, have been obtained using methods that have been described as illegal.<br /><br />Despite the conservative stance adopted by many media vehicles in the Murdoch empire, for instance, Fox News, he has sometimes sought to portray himself as anti-establishment. His newspapers have indeed, at times, gone after the rich and the powerful by exposing corruption in business and politics. He once said that “in the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” In fact, both Assange’s and Murdoch’s organisations have operated on the principle that getting to the truth is more important than anything else, including the means adopted to obtain information. <br /><br />While it can be argued that what has been revealed by Wikileaks has helped us better understand the world we live in and brought powerful governments to book, this is clearly not the case as far as information pertaining to the personal life of a murdered girl is concerned. In the case of Wikileaks, despite government claims that the release of sensitive diplomatic information can endanger lives and compromise delicate negotiations of foreign policy, the ends may justify the means. <br /><br />Ascertaining when information is in the public interest, and when it is just voyeurism is not an easy task. Sometimes the line is not clear until it has already been crossed. Ethical journalistic practices require considered reflection and debate. Given the contextual and changing nature of our notions of privacy, transparency and public interest, it is vital that we give these concepts the thought they deserve. The fault of the NOTW was a systemic one: it fostered a newsroom in which getting a story was the ultimate consideration and selling more copies the only goal. There was no place left for journalistic conscience. As James Murdoch, Rupert’s son, acknowledged: “The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself.” <br />The scandal in the UK should hopefully make Indian media practitioners reflect on how ethical practices need to be nurtured in their own organisations.<br /><em><br />(Thakurta is an independent journalist and former Member of Press Council of India. <br />Alice Seabright works with him.) </em><br /><br />The appropriate & the inappropriate<br /><br />* Tehelka’s Operation West End exposed the culture of bribery in the Ministry of Defence and led to the resignation of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes. This was accomplished by setting up a fake company and secretly filming officials and politicians without their knowledge.<br />* The airing of private conversations between journalists and corporate lobbyist Niira Radia revealed the unseemly links between the media, big business and politics. These recordings made by the Income Tax Directorate may have invaded the privacy of the individuals concerned but in this instance were substantially overridden by the larger public interest at stake. <br />* Media coverage of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar’s murder in May 2008 was highly unethical, putting out unsubstantiated rumours as fact and publishing information on private aspects of her and her family’s lives. However, drawing the line between the appropriate and the inappropriate can be contentious.<br />* The case of murdered British teenager Milly Dowler is relatively uncontroversial and most people would agree that the intrusion on the privacy of her family by the News of the World journalists was unwarranted.<br />* After Lady Diana and Dodi Al Fayed’s death in a car accident in Paris, many blamed the paparazzi at their heels for causing the crash. Whether this explanation is true or not is debatable.<br />* When Kate Moss was caught snorting cocaine on camera, the media argued that they had a duty to expose her. However, by publicising her actions, were journalists warning the youth about the dangers of cocaine use, or were they simply hoping to sell more newspapers?<br />* Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, is one of the leading proponents of the need for more transparency in public life and his organisation has published classified documents in order to expose unethical government behaviour. The documents, in many instances, have been obtained using methods described as illegal.<br /><br /></p>
<p>The publication specialised in what is called “gutter journalism” and it displayed a distinct fondness for sex scandals and celebrity gossip. Its critics derogatorily nicknamed it ‘Screws of the World’. But the recent scandal surrounding the NOTW, which revealed that its reporters had illegally hacked into voicemail messages of celebrities, politicians and victims of crime and their insidious association with politicians and policemen, has provoked an unprecedented wave of public outrage across the world. <br /><br />Politicians, representatives of civil society and large sections of the media as well have not just turned their back on the organisation that printed the now-closed NOTW but also on this genre of crudely commercial and sensational journalism. The episode holds important lessons for media professionals everywhere, including India, about the need to adhere to ethical norms of truthfulness, fairness, balance and objectivity while purveying information. The recent set of incidents relating to the NOTW underscores the importance of the need for journalists to be sensitive and responsible while reporting. Further, media personnel cannot consider themselves to be above the law.<br /><br />Core of media ethics<br /><br />The sheer scale of the hacking by NOTW staffers – there is reportedly a list of over 4,000 possible targets of hacking – and the revelation of corrupt links between journalists and policemen are in themselves reason for great concern. What is also lamentable is that what are considered acceptable levels of intrusion into an individual’s privacy were grossly over-reached. Privacy is defined as “the individual’s right to be left alone”. Journalism often involves taking difficult decisions to draw a line between the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. The tension that exists between these two principles is at the core of media ethics.<br /><br />Depending on the context, we tolerate instances of what may be considered extreme intrusions of privacy while in other cases, we deem them unacceptable. For example, most sting operations employ methods which are technically illegal and would be objectionable if it were not for the nature of the information being sought. Hidden camera footage and secret recordings form the meat of the evidence on which many a powerful and corrupt official has been held accountable. <br /><br />Tehelka’s Operation West End, for example, exposed the culture of bribery in the Ministry of Defence and led to the resignation of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes. This was accomplished by setting up a fake company and secretly filming officials and politicians without their knowledge. Similarly, the public airing of private conversations between journalists and lobbyist Niira Radia revealed the unseemly links between the media, big business and politics. <br /><br />The fact that these recordings could be said to have invaded the privacy of the individuals concerned was in this instance substantially overridden by the larger public interest at stake in the information that was revealed. <br /><br />It is significant that although it was known as early as 2006 that phone hackings were being done by people engaged by the News of the World, the episode escalated into a full-blown scandal after it was revealed that the victims of hacking included Milly Dowler, a murdered teenage schoolgirl, and the families of victims of the 7/7 bombings in the London Underground. There is an implicit sliding scale if a comparison is made between invading the privacy of celebrities and politicians, on the one hand, and that of innocent victims or ordinary citizens, on the other. Whereas it may be contended that for celebrities and politicians, invasion of privacy is part of the process of having become famous (or notorious), a grieving family member’s privacy is sacrosanct and there is no question that such individuals deserve to be left alone by the media. <br /><br />Aarushi vs Milli Dowler<br /><br />Nonetheless, murder victims, who by definition cannot defend themselves, have in the past been treated extremely insensitively by the media. For example, the way in which a section of the Indian media covered 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar’s murder in May 2008 was highly unethical, putting out unsubstantiated rumours as fact and publishing information on private aspects of her and her family’s lives. Drawing the line between the appropriate and the inappropriate can be contentious. <br /><br />The case of Milly Dowler is relatively uncontroversial, in that most people would agree that the intrusion on the privacy of her family was unwarranted. Other instances are not as clear-cut. The private lives of celebrities are in fact constantly being violated in order to sell newspapers and television programmes, and this practice is tolerated. This may be because it is felt that in exchange for the life of privilege they enjoy, by becoming public figures, their right to privacy can justifiably be eroded. Ethically, however, it is unclear why this should be the case. <br /><br />The practice of the paparazzi has been criticised, and not only by celebrities. After Lady Diana and Dodi Al Fayed’s death in a car accident in Paris, many blamed the paparazzi at their heels for causing the crash. Whether this explanation is true or not can be debated, but it highlighted the invasion of privacy that celebrities have to put up with. Does the public have a right to know about facts which have nothing to do with the public functions of prominent people? <br /><br />Some argue that the public is entitled to “all” information regarding its leaders and role-models. For example, when Kate Moss was caught snorting cocaine on camera, the media argued that as a role model for young people, they had a duty to expose her. However, by publicising her actions, were journalists warning the youth about the dangers of cocaine use, as they argued, or were they simply hoping to sell more newspapers? <br /><br />Judgements made on what is and what is not ethical depend on specific details of a situation. Many of those who have rightfully been incensed by the recent revelations relating to the NOTW would defend another organisation that is also headed by an Australian like Murdoch. Julian Assange, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks, is one of the leading proponents of the need for more transparency in public life and his organisation has published classified documents in order to expose unethical government behaviour. The documents, in many instances, have been obtained using methods that have been described as illegal.<br /><br />Despite the conservative stance adopted by many media vehicles in the Murdoch empire, for instance, Fox News, he has sometimes sought to portray himself as anti-establishment. His newspapers have indeed, at times, gone after the rich and the powerful by exposing corruption in business and politics. He once said that “in the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” In fact, both Assange’s and Murdoch’s organisations have operated on the principle that getting to the truth is more important than anything else, including the means adopted to obtain information. <br /><br />While it can be argued that what has been revealed by Wikileaks has helped us better understand the world we live in and brought powerful governments to book, this is clearly not the case as far as information pertaining to the personal life of a murdered girl is concerned. In the case of Wikileaks, despite government claims that the release of sensitive diplomatic information can endanger lives and compromise delicate negotiations of foreign policy, the ends may justify the means. <br /><br />Ascertaining when information is in the public interest, and when it is just voyeurism is not an easy task. Sometimes the line is not clear until it has already been crossed. Ethical journalistic practices require considered reflection and debate. Given the contextual and changing nature of our notions of privacy, transparency and public interest, it is vital that we give these concepts the thought they deserve. The fault of the NOTW was a systemic one: it fostered a newsroom in which getting a story was the ultimate consideration and selling more copies the only goal. There was no place left for journalistic conscience. As James Murdoch, Rupert’s son, acknowledged: “The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself.” <br />The scandal in the UK should hopefully make Indian media practitioners reflect on how ethical practices need to be nurtured in their own organisations.<br /><em><br />(Thakurta is an independent journalist and former Member of Press Council of India. <br />Alice Seabright works with him.) </em><br /><br />The appropriate & the inappropriate<br /><br />* Tehelka’s Operation West End exposed the culture of bribery in the Ministry of Defence and led to the resignation of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes. This was accomplished by setting up a fake company and secretly filming officials and politicians without their knowledge.<br />* The airing of private conversations between journalists and corporate lobbyist Niira Radia revealed the unseemly links between the media, big business and politics. These recordings made by the Income Tax Directorate may have invaded the privacy of the individuals concerned but in this instance were substantially overridden by the larger public interest at stake. <br />* Media coverage of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar’s murder in May 2008 was highly unethical, putting out unsubstantiated rumours as fact and publishing information on private aspects of her and her family’s lives. However, drawing the line between the appropriate and the inappropriate can be contentious.<br />* The case of murdered British teenager Milly Dowler is relatively uncontroversial and most people would agree that the intrusion on the privacy of her family by the News of the World journalists was unwarranted.<br />* After Lady Diana and Dodi Al Fayed’s death in a car accident in Paris, many blamed the paparazzi at their heels for causing the crash. Whether this explanation is true or not is debatable.<br />* When Kate Moss was caught snorting cocaine on camera, the media argued that they had a duty to expose her. However, by publicising her actions, were journalists warning the youth about the dangers of cocaine use, or were they simply hoping to sell more newspapers?<br />* Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, is one of the leading proponents of the need for more transparency in public life and his organisation has published classified documents in order to expose unethical government behaviour. The documents, in many instances, have been obtained using methods described as illegal.<br /><br /></p>
