It may be odd to write this in a newspaper but I am delighted to see the News of the World — the British newspaper — lose the case brought against them by Max Mosley, the head of the International Automobile Federation. As much as I support the right of journalists to enjoy full freedom of expression, and as much as I get frustrated at not being able to put in print all that I may express verbally among friends, I believe the right to privacy overrides freedom of speech.
It is entirely out of order for a newspaper to secretly film someone in the privacy of his/her home and make those images public. In this instance not only did they film Mosley without his consent, but they put the film out on their website, where it was viewed by 3.5 million people.
What was Mosley doing? It is none of my business, or yours. It is not up to me to delve into his personal life and judge whether what he does is moral or immoral, tasteful or distasteful, right or wrong. I most certainly do not want to view images of him having sex and feel very strongly that that kind of thing should never be published. It may be titillating, it may be sensational and make fantastic gossip and dinner conversation but it is private. All of us ought to feel that what we do behind closed doors — whether it is having a cup of tea or having sex — will never find itself on the Internet for all to see, unless, of course, we decide to put it there ourselves. And I genuinely don’t believe that being a public figure means that the public has a right to know what you do in private. As a journalist, I do not believe it is up to me to enforce morality, nor is it my role to disclose private information about others, even if they happen to be famous or VIPs.
So what about public interest? The rules that govern the conduct of the British media with respect to privacy are based on the idea that it is OK to invade someone’s privacy if it is in the public interest. For example, if a politician talks morality and family values but in private behaves in a way which conflicts with those views, newspapers feel that it is justified to reveal those actions. Even here I am not entirely sure it is the public’s business. In France, for instance, the media are much more respectful of the privacy of their politicians. They take the view that what a president or a minister does in the bedroom does not affect his capacity to do the job he was elected to do.
In the case of Max Mosley, the link seems even weaker. How do his preferences in the bedroom — whatever they may be — affect his capacity to run the business of motor racing?
Of course in this particular instance, the newspaper hid behind the allegation that the sexual acts they filmed had a Nazi theme. Max Mosley is famously the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, and a Nazi sympathizer. What they wanted to establish was that the son held the same political views as the father, and had Mosley Junior also been a Nazi supporter, then yes, you could see that this would make him unsuitable to run an international organization. But the Nazi allegation was merely a smokescreen. What made 3.5 million people visit the News of the World’s website was the thrill of viewing Mosley engaged in sexual acts, and specifically sexual acts of the kind decent people do not normally do. That is a shameful way to sell newspapers and the kind of thing that gives journalists a bad name.
So is this the end of kiss and tell journalism? Probably not. The News of the World was fined a puny 60,000 pounds, though it will have to pay costs of some 850,000 pounds. It is undoubtedly a lot of money, but will it deter newspapers from publishing stories that bring millions of people to their website and sell hundreds of thousands of newspapers and magazines? Hardly likely.
Celebrity pictures generate a massive amount of media business. Just consider that the first pictures of the babies of the actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were reportedly sold to a US magazine for $11 million, yes $11 million.
It is an obscene amount of money for photos of two babies, but it is a reality, those pictures will sell hundreds of thousands of magazines and generate millions of dollars in advertising revenue.
But there is a difference between publishing photos taken with consent and photos secretly filmed, let alone between publishing pictures of smiling babies and pictures of sexual acts. The latter should never be published, full stop.
