Tuesday, February 21, 2006

The prince's personals...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/21/britain.charles/index.html

I find it rather disturbing when a news agency publishes information that is personal, and illegally obtained. Just because the person involced is a public person, they have no right to print a story based on stolen material.

While it is perfectly understandable that people who hold a public interest are obviously more newsworthy; they should still have an expected level of privacy. This act no different than a camera crew planting a camera in Prince Charles' bedroom and then broadcasting it over the 6 o'clock news. I understand that it wasn't the The Mail that stole the diary, they did publish the diary, knowing it had been stolen.

I can see no other ethical reason to publish the contents of the diary. I see no loyalties to anybody but the writer himself and the company that hired him.

4 comments:

Moulton said...

Well golly.

The government spies on the people and the press, and the press spies on the government.

I'm shocked. Shocked.

Aggie Blue said...

Prince Charles is suing his former employee, the person who snooped in his personal diary and then wrote her own book about it.

As I understand it, the press covered the story about her book, which has boomed to the top of Britain's bestseller lists.

Is it the press's fault that the author swiped the diary and made money on it? Should the press just sweep this under the bed and pretend it's not a story?

In the USA, courts have held that the more public a person chooses to be through their own chosen political activity, the less privacy they have. In other words, there are no "private facts" about the president. Should there be?

ben said...

I know the government spied on people all of the time; but the press has one thing that the government will never have, an ethical system. I know it's starry eyed to say, but the media should hold themselves higher than the group they are checking up on.

Spying happens on both sides, and I understand that. But unless there detis a serious matter at hand, it doesn't need to be published. I don't think that comments about the Hong Kong handover qualify as national security.

In Sidis v. F-R Publishing the court established a five part test to determine the constitutionality of the publication of private information of a public person. And I think if this happened in the US, Charles would have a case, I doubt with the newspaper, but the ex-employee.

I appear to have read this situation wrong, and managed to overlook the book that had previously been written. So I don't feel the newspaper did anything wrong.

Bittymiah said...

The paper should not have published what they found. I don't see why Charles isn't suing the paper itself and the employee.

The paper published it knowing it was stolen. Aren't they just as guilty as the one that actually went and got the diary?

Also, the government does spy on people but they usually don't post personal matters on the 6:00 news for the whole world to see unless that person has actually committed a crime.

We do it to the government just for fun.