Freedom to the press, but how much damage does it cause?

Every other day, for a consumer of news in the tabloid press there is some kind of scandal or ‘exposé’ of a particular famous person or one that is potentially linked to a celebrity lifestyle.
As Lord Phillips said on delivering the verdict in the second trial of the Naomi Campbell v.s. "The Mirror" case: "The Human rights which gave a right to respect for family and private life, must be balanced against freedom of expression in the media. Where a public figure chooses to make untrue pronouncements about his, or her, private life, the press will normally be entitled to put the record straight". This statement stresses, that there should be a line between the press and the ‘private life’ of a person of interest - but should they wish to challenge what a paper has written about them/seen to expose them which is in fact true - the press have a right to challenge a retaliation.

The Naomi Campbell case is an interesting one as the accusation exposed to the "Mirror" readers, turned out to be true with regards to Campbell taking narcotics. She was defensive of this story as it was damaging to her reputation. Initially awarded £3,500 in compensation, she was later to loose this money and in fact pay more as it appeared to be true. Her outrage was due to the press diminishing her persona as a ‘drug-free’ model - which by proving otherwise caused embarrassment to her character as a public figure and posing her true self to be a liar. But as a public who thrives on these tabloid ‘scoops’ and ‘shock exclusives’ - are we really entitled to know everything about people who end up finding themselves in the press?
One side of the argument is isn’t right to delve to much into a persons private lifestyle.

In my opinion, the late Diana, Princess of Wales’ ‘coverage’ shortly before her death in Paris, which is a case in point. Members of the press from almost every tabloid paper surrounded her last holiday with Dodi Al Fayed. Members of the press had been said to hire ‘vantage points’ for ‘back-handers’ in order to obtain intimate pictures of the couple. Absolutely everywhere that Diana and Dodi went, the paparazzi were stepping on their heels waiting to get ‘that photograph’ of a proposal. At the crash site of the car in which killed Al Fayed and later took the life of Princess Diana, ‘global’ press swarmed the scene as they had been following the car prior to the events. It was later revealed by Paul Burrell that Dodi Al Fayed was to propose to the ex-wife of Prince Charles - confirming the suspicions of the press. This intense invasion of privacy was not only potentially damaging - there were no outside forces to pull aside these photographers and tell them to back off as there is not a specific governing body restraining what the press can and can’t do with regards to coverage matter.

To credit the press, they gave a lot of coverage with sympathy and regret in her passing. Which reflected in the opinions of the public. It was a shame that they did not give her this ‘type’ of attention while she was still alive.

Another case of privacy invasion was Prince William. Prince Charles and the Earl of Wessex had a large falling-out due to the Earl’s production company, "Ardent films" producing a private documentary on Prince William to sell to the United States. As soon as he had left his studies and went on to University he was followed around. Despite the ordinary press being given a couple of days access when he first arrived at St. Andrews University then agreeing to leave him alone to start his studies, "Ardent films" were privately capturing his movements and asking his friends for information on him in turn to make a big "money-spinner" at the expense of a young mans daily life.

In some cases, it is expected that the press give us the truth about certain people. Another look at this is "if they are in the public eye, they should be observed and judged by the public". A case of this is the "Name and Shame" campaign that the "News of the world" took upon themselves to initiate. This was brought after the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne and the existing law in America called "Megan’s law". The new campaign for "Sarah’s Law" in this country lead by the paper was to name registered paedophiles and publish their addresses in the aim of highlighting the severity and dispersion of this problem in Britain. The bad thing that the paper did was to publish addresses, this not only targeted a minority of paedophiles who may have committed their crimes thirty years ago (for example), but also innocent people who had moved into the residence that the ‘named paedophile’ used to live at thus targeting people for no reason at all - just because they may look a little like the person in question, another person may share the same name (e.g., common names such as Smith, Brown etc.). We as a public do have the right to know whether children in our communities are safe from the clutches of paedophiles but to allow the potential to cause vigilantism can turn our society into a stereotype of burning torches and pitchforks.

To conclude, I feel that sometimes papers appear to abuse their power and do not necessarily take into consideration of others. We are a ‘gossip-loving’, ‘scandal-consuming’ nation who has the need to set aside mundane stories which appear to drag along in daily life. The escapism of another persons misfortune or misinterpretation of persona is enticing to us and the press find stories to gain our readership. We do have the right to know what people are up to if they have done anything wrong on a public scale, but at the same time, respect their privacy because they are only people like us away from the ‘glitz’ and ‘glam’. Celebrities are ‘figures’ who we are expected to respect and admire, a newspaper appears to be the ‘rip-chord’ to their ‘parachute’ in which either goes against them or helps them in their time of need. In my view, if I was a celebrity who had done something wrong or said something out of turn, I would try to correct what I had said to bring my public persona back to a neutral one. Newspapers jump onto the ‘bandwagon’. We may not essentially need these stories in our everyday life, but we are exposed to them through our national press and it has become part of our lifestyle to accept them for the norm.