Public virtues and private lives

A controversy involving a columnist raises the question whether public figures should have the right to personal privacy. The columnist contends that there can be no distinction between the public and private lives of public personalities who are paid by the state. But, she stresses, the public does not have the right to know what occurs in the private life of a public personality such as a television newscaster.

In practice, it is not always so clear cut.

Some years ago, when News of the World published a story by the Beckhams' nanny about the celebrity couple's marital discord, a British judge ruled that publication of the story was in the public interest. The point made in this instance was that those who invite favourable publicity regarding their private lives cannot object when their privacy is invaded without their permission.

A few days ago, an Italian magazine broke the story of Irene Pivetti's marital separation. Rather than allowing the press to indulge in speculation, Ms Pivetti chose to give the facts in a dignified manner in Lamberto Sposini's highly-respected talk show La Vita In Diretta. Mr Sposini stressed that the matter was of public interest since Ms Pivetti was a public figure three times over: a former Speaker, a journalist and a media personality.

How far can journalists probe into a person's private life to get news? The News Manual, a professional resource for journalists and the media, maintains that this is most easily answered where the individuals are public figures, especially where they are people who have put themselves forward for public positions of trust: people like politicians, group leaders, clergymen and all those people whose personalities and private morality are essential parts of their work.

The manual makes a distinction between those people who have voluntarily entered the public arena and those who are forced into it by circumstances they could not reasonably have expected. On this basis, media celebrities have surely entered the public arena voluntarily.

In the matter of privacy, entertainers often make a plea for special treatment as public figures. They argue that, as they are not appointed or elected to positions of public trust, their off-stage or off-screen lives are nobody's business but their own. The answer is that if celebrities use the media to make money, they cannot be surprised when the media use their private lives to sell newspapers.

There is a dividing line between those things that the public has a right to know and those that individuals have a right to keep private, no matter how interesting they might be to other people. If a public figure's strange behaviour in the privacy of his or her own home has no possible effect on his or her public role, the media cannot claim they have a duty to report it. They would simply be invading the person's privacy. But what if that behaviour results in a report lodged with the police?!

If I am a journalist who indulges in the cult of the news personality, I have no right to argue for special treatment if others examine my private life. If I present a television chat show or write a personal comment column in a newspaper I must accept the risks associated with fame.

The author is a former broadcast journalist and former member of the Broadcasting Authority's advisory committee on news and current affairs.

toniofarrugia@gmail.com