How far do the media have the right to probe into a person’s life?

Globalization has made the world even smaller and increased the borders of media. It is a worldwide responsibility of media to present factual truth to the global society. It is not a matter of whether one likes it, wants it or needs it. The media’s responsibility could never be overemphasized when its impact on world politics, economy, culture and other social sectors has increasingly widened. It is absolutely true for a news organization to report the truth as much as possible. It is the very basic requirement of the media industry. But nowadays that is far from enough. The media, like all corporations, are no longer held accountable for their actions. Questionable Celebrity photos and paparazzi culture has disgraced media and diverted media from its responsibility. Social networks have become a good asset for the media to explore into private lives. Media has become a basic tool to earn money and with that many media corporations have started to probe into private lives to dig dirt and violating the right to privacy.

One man's gossip may be another man's news, but distinguishing between the two is often the key in determining whether the press is guilty of invasion of privacy. Whether an article or broadcast is newsworthy, whether the information was gathered in an objectionable fashion, whether truthful information is nonetheless highly offensive, all are considerations in weighing individuals' claims against the news media. Invasion of privacy is a civil wrong, which can lead to jury trials and potential claims for compensatory and punitive damages. The gist of the wrongful act is a physical intrusion into a place where the reporter has no lawful right to be, i.e., peering into windows, tape recording conversations of others without consent, or reproducing private documents without consent. Sometimes the intrusion is not physical, but is accomplished by electronic devices. These kinds of intrusion and offensive behaviors question the moral integrity of the journalist itself. Here we have to have moral standards upon the media’s right to invade a private life. It is not the case of secrecy but it is a case of moral value. Media has the right to search for a criminal and it can follow such behaviors in such cases but invading a common man’s life is morally incorrect.

The end of the twentieth century was dominated by the extraordinary growth of the Internet as a communications medium and commercial engine. It revolutionized the media industry and made it more commercial. This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication included not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video, and still images. This provided media with more power and more responsibility but the real deal came when Internet was introduced with social networks. Social networks became the pool of private information that could be viewed publicly. The unprecedented power offered by social network media also threatened individual privacy. The photo sharing and the YouTube videos became a global phenomenon but it added to the risk of exposure of private information. The attack by hackers and media releasing photos are the consequences of media probing into the private lives of a common man. If the media cannot handle the risk of securing theses private information then it questions the extent of media’s right to probe for information.

Celebrities are most haunted by media probing into their life. Paparazzi taking photos and the media presenting rumors about celebrities in their gossip news present the signs of yellow journalism. It is common for media proprietors or executives and for consumers to distance themselves from paparazzi, particularly during outbreaks of community emotion such as followed the death of Princess Diana. However, they are complicit in production, distribution and consumption of celebrity images. It makes media look more like a financial institution. Paparazzi released the photos of Princess Diana right after her death to the media houses which was a proof of yellow journalism. Recent rumors of Jackie Chan and Rajnikant being dead are all a consequence of lack of privacy and yellow journalism. The Paris Hilton sex tape and Britney Spears photo without her underwear caught by the paparazzi shows disrespect to privacy and women. These examples do prove that the credibility of media decreases as it involves itself in menial affairs as such. Media should report the consequences of Global warming, probe into corruption by the government rather than exploring the privacy of common man.

Media should be a responsible force rather than a financial power. Certainly finance is an issue but media should take a step towards serious issues such as poverty and education. Media should respect the privacy of an individual and be responsible. Media is a good source which would go waste if it humiliates the privacy of an individual.