Tabloid ethics: Sneak shots of a celeb’s home are fine, and a shagging couple’s a bonus
I’ve never been a fan of bashing tabloid newspapers just for being tabloid newspapers.
Indeed, in a previous existence, I’ve stood on the odd celebrity doorstep myself.
But I can’t help but be thoroughly depressed by an item in The Daily Telegraph today in which the Sydney paper cheerful outs itself for being a privacy-invading, prurient tabloid.
It celebrates its photographer hiding in his car with a (presumably) long-lens camera in order to photograph cricketer Michael Clarke in the privacy of his home, and as a side effect catching tacky photos of a (non-famous) couple having sex nearby.
I await the day when the media will be held accountable for invasion of a persons personal time under say, stalking laws.
What a (edited by Mumbrella)?
As a government PR flack, I once took the Sunday Tele to the Press Council for photographing disabled people through the windows of their Government accommodation. There were several homes on these premises, which had no security gate so anyone could walk into the grounds.
The Press Council decided this was sufficient excuse for the “journalist” to step inside the grounds and photograph people – who may or may not have been able to give informed consent, in the unlikely event they’d been asked.
Press Council? Gimme a break. They still think it’s all about “scoops” written by guys who chainsmoke and wear battered trilbies.
This must be the new, smart, innovative journalism John Hartigan was wanking about.
Bunch of wankers really.
This is bloody appalling. It’s the reason I left “journalism” and crossed to the “dark side” of PR. I got fed up with stalking celebrities and wanted to engage in a more honest communications transaction than the infotainment that purports to be news. Now I sell stuff. And it’s stuff I like, so there’s no conflict of interest or moral quandry. I’ll never need to ask the chief of staff to remove my name from a shameful front page story again. It’s a shame consumers are so damned interested in this sort of exploitative tripe. That’s the only reason they keep producing it. Where there’s demand, there is bound to be supply.
suspect these pics would be illegal if taken in Tasmania, where a reasonable expectation of privacy determines whether paparazzi pics can ne taken…
Unfortunately the MEAA’s Journalist Code of Ethics has about as much currency as its ‘Freelance Pay Rates’ statement, ie, none at all.
Here’s an idea … let’s all visit John Grainger at home. And anywhere else. Often. With cameras. And post the doubtless invasive photographs that we should, between the lot of us, be able to score on our Facebook pages. And anywhere else we can. Perhaps send them to rival publications. Or just set up a site JohnGraingerToday.com.au
But let’s always blank out his face.
I mean, we wouldn’t want to intrude.
And we wouldn’t want to give the wanker any further publicity, would we?
Pass a rusty razor blade. This is utterly depressing.
Not poor Michael Clarke….poor Lara Bingle for having to see those snaps of the ex boyfriend she was so in love with!