A few weeks ago, an Italian magazine published some 18 photographs of a topless Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, and her spouse, England’s Prince William, sunbathing at a villa in southern France. Following the 19-page spread in the magazine ‘Chi’, its editor, Alfonso Signorini, tweeted that “not even a direct call from the Queen” would have stopped him from carrying the naked photos.
The publication of the photos followed a snap sequence published a week earlier by French magazine ‘Closer’. Both the magazines are owned by disgraced former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who himself had last year been “trialled” by the world media for his sexual romps, including one with an underage prostitute, in his mansion outside Milan.
The balance between press freedom and privacy has given rise to much debate in recent years, in an era of deep celebrity intrusion, confessional journalism and the invasive “telephoto lens”. And, the latest publication of Kate’s topless photos has once again brought to the fore the age-old issue of media’s intrusion into privacy.
I firmly believe that a free press is both a critical feature of an open, democratic society and a threat to privacy.
Between 2006 and 2011, the now-defunct ‘News of the World’ tabloid revelations weakened media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s empire. This emboldened many politicians in the US, the UK and Australia. In parallel, public dissatisfaction has also been evident with media behaviour and unjustified disclosures of personal data in media publications. Calls for institutional and process reformation to achieve more appropriate balances have risen to a crescendo.
Now, in India, for example, a task force under the National Security Council Secretariat has recommended that the government should consider enacting a law to ensure that the media is not allowed to intrude into the private lives of people holding public positions, adding a fresh dimension to the privacy debate.
The task force also reportedly feels that television news channels should be brought under the purview of the Press Council of India by amending the law. While some celebrate India’s media “revolution”, claiming that it is successfully narrowing the distance between government and the governed, others remain more circumspect. Citing the parallel “explosion” of Bollywood gossip columns, the ubiquity of sting operations, and a ravenous paparazzi, they suggest that the media has lost its moral compass and can no longer claim to be acting in the “public interest”.
Far from being the “watchdog” of democracy, they argue that the Indian media is now enslaved to the same foibles as the western media, hounding celebrities and politicians 24 hours a day and sacrificing decency and editorial judgment along the way.
Despite the chorus of criticism launched at the media following revelations of bogus sting operations, many have argued that calls for privacy laws are a covert attempt to gag the media and an infringement of a free press. Defending the media’s tactics, they suggest that the ends justify the means.
The debate is never-ending. Media standards are influenced by public opinion, broadcasters like the BBC do try to lead the way, and it is up to all of us who are concerned about media irresponsibility to raise our voices and speak out.
Feedback: abatra@exchange4media.com
