Journalists Methods

Methods used by journalis to infring into privacy of persons are regulated not only by law but also by ethical codexes or guidelines. Something like a standard we can find in BBC guidelines. Below you can find some of them.

Privacy generally  -  Crime and anti-social behaviour  -  The Law

Right of Privacy 

 

 

Depending on the circumstances, the matters to be taken into account include the following. The comments are illustrative only.
1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. The steps taken to verify the information.
5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

 

 

 

 

 

...E had committed a breach of confidence as well as a violation of the art 8 rights of all those involved and publication could only be justified if it were in the public interest: see art 8(2) of the Convention and cl 10 of the Press Complaints Commission Editors Code of Practice, 1 August 2007. There could be a public interest in the secret filmings and subsequent publication of behaviour which involved “mocking the ways Jews were treated” or “parodying Holocaust horror” where the claimant was accountable to an organisation and where such behaviour would call into question his role in that organisation. However the evidence did not support the conclusion that the claimant had specifically ordered a Nazi or concentration camp scenario or that there was in fact a Nazi or concentration camp theme to the event. Sado-masochistic behaviour, even where there was adultery, was not a matter of public interest in itself and it was not for the media to expose sexual conduct which did not involve any significant breach of the criminal law. It was for the court to decide ex post facto whether a particular publication was in the public interest and such a decision must be capable of being tested by objectively recognised criteria. It could, however, be argued as a matter of public policy, that allowance should be made for a decision reached which fell within a range of reasonably possible conclusions and to this end there could be scope for paying regard to the concept of “responsible journalism”: see in the context of public interest privilege in libel, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127.

 

The ingringemet of right of privacy can be seen also in case of formal czech prime minister. The case of his private photographs deals also with this photography - please dont forgett that this is a really exceptional photography.

 Protection of Privacy

 

 

Furthermore, private life, in the Court’s view, includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity; the guarantee afforded by Article 8 of the Convention is primarily intended to ensure the development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings (see, mutatis mutandis, Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29, and Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 422, § 32). There is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life” (see, mutatis mutandis, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-IX, and Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-I).
51. The Court has also indicated that, in certain circumstances, a person has a “legitimate expectation” of protection and respect for his or her private life. Accordingly, it has held in a case concerning the interception of telephone calls on business premises that the applicant “would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy for such calls” (see Halford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 1016, § 45).
52. As regards photos, with a view to defining the scope of the protection afforded by Article 8 against arbitrary interference by public authorities, the European Commission of Human Rights had regard to whether the photographs related to private or public matters and whether the material thus obtained was envisaged for a limited use or was likely to be made available to the general public (see, mutatis mutandis, Friedl v. Austria, judgment of 31 January 1995, Series A no. 305-B, opinion of the Commission, p. 21, §§ 49-52; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 58; and Peck, cited above, § 61).
 

 

 

42. The protection of private life has to be balanced against the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. As regards Article 8, the Court reiterates that its object is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities. It does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life (see Von Hannover, cited above, § 57, and Stjerna v. Finland, judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 299-B, p. 61, § 38). The boundary between the State’s positive and negative obligations under this provision does not lend itself to precise definition. The applicable principles are, nonetheless, similar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, among many other authorities, Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49, and Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 427, § 33).

 

 

The photograph of the body of Claude Erignac lying on the ground in a street in Ajaccio which appeared in edition 2543 of the weekly Paris Match, dated 19 February 1998, was published without the consent of Claude Erignac's family, who consider its publication as an intrusion into the intimacy of their private life” ...”42. In that connection, whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes “duties and responsibilities” the scope of which depends on his situation and the technical means he uses. The potential impact of those means must be taken into account when considering the proportionality of the interference. The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists is subject, because of those very “duties and responsibilities”, to the proviso that they provide reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports 1996 II,p. 500, § 39; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999 I; and Colombani and Others, cited above). So when photographs are published the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular importance, especially when it involves large-scale dissemination of images containing very personal or even intimate “information” about an individual or his or her family (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 59, ECHR 2004 VI).