I have chosen Case 10-D from Patterson and Wilkins Chapter 10. This particular scenario is about Naomi Campbell and how journalists violated her privacy during her drug addiction. The Code of Ethics I will be referring to is from the Society of Professional Journalists. I will also reference our Plaisance Ch. 2 reading for further analysis.
Let's begin with a rundown of the case. Naomi Campbell began her career as a supermodel at the age of 15. She is an African American woman who was discovered in London and became one of the worlds most successful models in the 80's and 90's. Apart from her success as an African American woman in the modeling industry, she gained much recognition for her "prima donna" attitude, violent behavior and drug abuse. The latter is what gave Campbell the front cover of many gossip magazines and newspapers even though she continually denied being involved with drugs.
But journalists refused to let the issue go no matter how hard Campbell fought. The public had a right to know if she was dealing illegally on the side. In 2001, London's Daily Mirror published an article that included a picture of Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The article gave specific details about the meeting and Campbell went straight for the British courts suing for invasion of privacy. After a long hard battle, the courts ruled that Campbell's privacy was invaded and that she be rewarded $6,000 in damages and the tabloid to pay $110,000 for court costs. The judge ruled that although celebrities are in the lime light most of the time, and aspects of their private lives become public, they are still entitled to privacy.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, the journalists who reported Campbell leaving the meeting were not in violation of the first code: Seek Truth and Report It. Campbell was in fact addicted to drugs. She continually lied about it and in the end, the courts allowed the Daily Mirror to report on her addiction; the public had a right to know they were being lied to. But where things go a little south is with the second code: Minimize Harm. The journalists unfortunately did not take into consideration Campbell's well being. They did not "show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage...Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance...Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy."
The case does not provide much detailed information about the rest of the case, but it seems that Daily Mirror and its journalists did not violate the other two codes: Act Independently and Be Accountable. The only violation committed was a breach of privacy. Campbell herself even said she regretted many aspects of the trail. It seems that if Campbell had admitted her drug addiction from the beginning, this may not have been such a big headache. At the same time, how far into ones private life should journalists really go? It seems that this situation was blown way out of proportion because Campbell denied using drugs in the first place. That only gave Journalists a fire under their butt because they knew she was lying. But according to the code of the ethics for journalists, they crossed the line with the photograph and article about her Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
This code of ethics is helpful in understanding the main ethical issues of the case. They are specific as what to do and not do, and we can clearly see where they committed a violation. But if we want to dig a little deeper and ask questions like "Should celebrities have their own categories of privacy compared to others?" the code can't really help us answer them. There is no right or wrong answer for that question, and it will always be up for debate. Overall It seems there are more ethical questions in this case that can't be answered using the code of ethics. The code is good starting point, but unfortunately there can never be a written set of rules for what is right or wrong in life. It's never just black and white, there is always going to be a grey area.
With this case, the Communitariasm Theory might be effectively applied. Communitariasm focuses solely on justice and that the "communities interest trumps the individual's interest." The public most likely continued to show interest in Naomi Campbells drug addiction because she kept denying it. The journalist made it their priority to make sure the public was fully informed; they believed the community deserved a right to know and therefore took precedent over Campbell's wants or beliefs.
If we look at this case from Mill's perspective however, the journalists who reported might have wanted to rethink their decision to publish Campbell's story. Mill focused his principal on the consequences of actions. The result of the Daily Mirror publishing the article led to a law suit and long drawn out battle. In the end, they were ordered to repay Campbell in money for the damage the article bestowed on her. Losing over a hundred thousand dollars probably wasn't good for the paper. On the contrary however, they didn't mind the money so much. The judge ruled they were allowed to run a story concluding that Campbell was indeed a drug addict. They saw their loss as a small victory.
This case in my opinion is cut and dry in terms of code of ethics. The Daily Mirror clearly over stepped their boundaries when they published the article about Campbell's NA meeting. But at the same time, how many tabloids have we seen to date where this kind of information is splashed across the front page? Have our code of ethics in journalism gone out the window? Or have we just become tolerant with certain subjects? Celebrities are constantly in the lime light and are therefore subject to public scrutiny. Being public, being famous, is what they live for. So I can't help but understand where journalists are coming from. If you don't want people to know what your life is like, then don't put yourself in that position.
No comments:
Post a Comment