Hypocrisy on Both Sides Is Laid Bare in Privacy Debate

By Greenslade, Roy | The Evening Standard (London, England), September 12, 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Hypocrisy on Both Sides Is Laid Bare in Privacy Debate

Greenslade, Roy, The Evening Standard (London, England)

AN Irish barrister speaking at a Dublin conference last weekend referred to privacy as "the impossible right". Max Mosley would certainly know what he meant. Once your deepest, darkest secret is revealed to the public, there is no recompense -- such as the jailing of an editor, perhaps, or unlimited damages -- that would make any difference.

Doubtless, the TV broadcasters Andrew Marr and Dermot Murnaghan are reflecting on that today too. In separate incidents, they were pictured in two Sunday newspapers kissing women who were not their wives. Then a daily paper put the pictures up online, and it hardly needs saying nowadays that they were soon to be found all over the net.

Similarly, a couple of weeks ago, Prince Harry suffered from the embarrassment of his naked high jinks being revealed, first on US websites and -- after a day or so of reflection following a Palace request to Britain's national papers not to publish -- on The Sun's front page.

In every case, editors offered a publicinterest justification for what were clear intrusions into privacy. All were said to be role models who, because they fell short in private of the standards they supposedly exhibit in public, deserved to be exposed.

In the Marr and Murnaghan cases, incidentally, they were covertly caught on camera in places where, to quote the editors' code of practice, they could not reasonably expect to guarantee their privacy.

Given that Lord Justice Leveson is currently writing a report about newspaper behaviour and a reformed system of press regulation, the timing of publication could not be more sensitive.

It appears months of apparent restraint by tabloid editors are over.

But the episode does again offer an opportunity to explore the apparent insolubility of two linked concepts -- privacy and public interest. The problem is that both are fluid and have proved impossible to define with the kind of rigour that could result in hard and fast legislation.

One man's invasion of privacy is another man's right to know. Just to confuse matters, experience suggests that there is no consistency when people are asked to decide one way or the other on individual cases. Judges, who treat every case on its merits, also seem to reach contradictory decisions.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Hypocrisy on Both Sides Is Laid Bare in Privacy Debate


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?