Following the article by Deborah Schembri (‘Private lives and public interest’, February 11) and the excellent one by Kevin Aquilina (‘Public interest in media law’, February 14), I would like to add to this debate not in reply to either but rather so that everyone can reach an informed decision when a case like that of Economy Minister Chris Cardona occurs.
In fact, I will not refer to Cardona’s particular case but dwell on the general principles that affect the delicate issue of whether the private life of politicians is a ‘no go’ area for journalists.
In this direction I will be guided by The News Manual – A professional resource for journalists and the media, compiled and published with the help of UNESCO as a practical guide to people entering the profession.
Chapter 62 of this manual deals with ‘Privacy and public interest’. It discusses the relationship between a person’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know about that person’s life. Furthermore it discusses what it means to be a public figure and what rights journalists have to examine their lives and the lives of their families.
The first duty of a journalist, according to the manual, is to let people know what is going on in the world around them, so that they can make their own decisions about what to think, do or say.
The manual is very practical about who and when a person is considered to be of public interest.
A bus driver becomes an employee when he starts his working day and reverts to being a private individual when he finishes. He can be as rude, unhelpful and abusive as he wants in private, but is expected to be polite and helpful when on duty.
The distinction between private and public lives becomes less clear when people carry on part of their professional life outside normal working hours. A successful businessman needs to make contacts at any time, a social worker may decide to call on a client on his or her way home, just for a chat. They are carrying their professional lives into their private time, but are they merging their professional and private lives?
The distinction almost ceases to exist in cases where an individual’s work or professional life depends entirely on them presenting their total selves to the public. Politicians are the best examples. People elect politicians to office for who they are, not just for their skills at a particular job.
Politicians can promise voters their friendships will never influence them in public office. A journalist should monitor whether they keep that promise
A politician’s career depends on meeting lots of people and being popular with voters. Although it is often difficult to separate a person’s private life from their public role, most of us can recognise the limits in individual professions and specific cases.
The journalists’ manual then tackles the right of people to know what is really going on and says that where a person’s character is an essential part of performing their public role, the public has the right to know any facts which reveal special aspects of their character, especially faults. This is because private morality can tell us something about the person’s character and how it could affect their professional performance. If, in his private life, a public figure is found to have lied in a serious way, the public should be made aware that he could be lying in his work, too. Where public figures are responsible for setting a moral tone in society, any private immorality should be exposed as hypocrisy. For example, society should be aware that a leading campaigner against child abuse regularly beats his own children.
The media should constantly examine the lives of public figures with responsibility for public funds and other assets. Politicians who have the power to influence the awarding of contracts should accept that their private friendships with business people should be open to public view. After all, it is taxpayers’ money they could be giving away illegally.
Politicians can promise voters that their friendships will never influence them in public office. As a journalist one should monitor whether they keep that promise.
If any misdeeds in private could be used to blackmail that person into compromising their public trust, the public has the right to know about it.
The manual says there is a dividing line between those things which the public has a right to know and those which 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 own home has no possible effect on his public role, the media cannot claim they have a duty to report it.
To sum up, the manual recommends to journalists that they can report on the private life of public figures if it tells something about their character which might affect their public duty, if they are responsible for public assets, and if their private misdeeds could affect the public good.
On the strength of this document I totally agree with the conclusion reached by the editorial of The Sunday Times of Malta (February 12) that Cardona’s story “is undoubtedly in the public interest”. At the same time I definitely don’t agree with Deborah Schembri’s argument that this was an ‘intrusion’ in the private life of a politician.
Ultimately it will be the public which has the final say over the politicians with their vote in a free and fair election.
Jean Pierre Debono is PN deputy secretary general and election candidate, seventh district.