A journalist is supposed to work in the public interest but what the may or may not entail is often unclear. In a industry where public interest is used to justify the breach of ethical codes and laws is it important to know what information is in the public interest and what information is simply of interest to the public. In this essay I will attempt an examination of the two concepts and ask if there is a different between a journalist exposing something in the public interest and writing something, because it is of interest to the public.
To examine the difference between something in the public interest and something that is of interest to the public a journalist must first unpack the meaning of the word interest because in each phrase it has different connotations. The two definitions of interest that are relevant to the question are:
- The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone: “She looked about her with interest.”
- The advantage or benefit of a person or group: “We are acting in the best interests of our customers.”
[Oxford Dictionary. (2015). (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/interest)]
While these different connotations of interest are now unpackaged for the journalist to understand it doesn’t differentiate between which information is of benefit to the public and which is of interest to the public. While the differentiation is subjective varying between journalists a number of journalistic authorities have published guidelines to help journalists understand what information is of benefit to the public.
The two journalistic authorities that will guide the journalist to defining what information is of benefit to the public are the Press Complains Commission (PCC) and OFCOM. The PCC explicitly states that public interest is not confined to their definitions as if it is interpreted to narrowly or widely the code would constrain investigative journalism. Their guidelines are:
- Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
- Protecting public health and safety.
- Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
[Editors Code Book. p1. Press Complains Commission (PCC). (2011) (http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/449/Public_Interest.pdf) (http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/696/Code_of_Practice_2012_A4.pdf)]
The PCC also makes a point that there is no exclusivity between what is of interest to the public and public interest, for example Wikileaks published a draft of the Intellectual Property Rights chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is a subject to both public interest and an interest to the public.
[Wikileaks publishes draft of secretive TPP trade pact. CNET. (2013). (http://www.cnet.com/news/wikileaks-publishes-draft-of-secretive-tpp-trade-pact/) (https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html)
In conclusion to answer the question: Is there a difference between a journalist exposing something in the public interest and writing something, because it is of interest to the public? The answer is both yes and no, public interest and interest of the public are not mutually exclusive ideals. A journalist is able to expose and write something that is of interest to the public provided that is also in the public interest. In a Communications Committee regarding the future of investigative journalism Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian said:
“The first bar is to consider the harm of what is going to be done. So if you are going to do things—all journalism has an impact—what is the harm going to be that results from what you do? The second is: what is the good that is going to result from what you do; what is the public good that you are trying to achieve? The third is proportionality. Are the methods that you are thinking of using proportional to the aims that you are trying to achieve, and could they be achieved in another way?”
[The future of investigative journalism – Communications Committee. 100. Parliment.uk (2012). (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldcomuni/256/25606.htm)
The methods used to procure the information and the harm they may incite must reflect the beneficial good the information will entail. OFCOM concides when saying:
“We only [use hidden microphones] when we are pretty certain that we’ve got very good reason to do it.”
[The Public Interest, the Media and Privacy. Morrison & Svennevig. (2002) (3.14) (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/research/pidoc.pdf)
Without the justification of a beneficial good to the public there is no public interest. A journalist violating privacy to procure information that is of interest of the public but no benefit to the public is not a justification for the privacy violation. The beneficial good to the public a piece of information holds is the difference between public interest and interest to the public.
Jonathan Brook. 