<doc.id=1099.a2>
<title> Mass Media and Privacy </title>
The invasion of privacy by the media is always a hot topic. The self-appointed victims on one side - often very famous people - and on the other side the media, who claim the freedom of speech. But when has this freedom gone too far? Do we really have to know every private detail of the world of the famous? The goal is of course to strike a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the public interest in freedom of the press. In this essay I will look at the reporters' checklist when it comes to matters concerning privacy, and also when we feel that they have crossed the line just to get a good story in order to sell a few more copies of a certain tabloid. Let's discuss this matter further on. 
	The media should of course have the right to publish any lawfully obtained truthful information. Looking at the sales figures of gossip magazines, we find that a majority of people like to read them, and will pay for such information - by for instance buying a magazine. When publishing companies saw the demand for tabloids from the public, a lot of new gossip magazines were started, and by that of course also a big rivalry between them. In this rivalry it is natural to come up with the flashiest head-lines that attract the interest of the people in order to make them buy just that magazine. And here you will find the problems to this invasion of privacy concerning mostly famous people. Editors want to get their hands on something about someone in the spotlight that no one else has - and if that means painting them in less favourable light, then so be it. 
	A certain invasion of privacy can be called the "false light". This is what happens when information is published about a public person and causes him/her a wrong reputation. This often happens with politicians. Public figures have a limited right of privacy because they have in a way put themselves in that position of being exposed to scrutiny. The media should however be restricted from publishing information which intrudes upon the privacy of individuals. The reporter should check all the material, and see that no false material is added, and that the arrangements of materials don't give a false impression. But as soon as you put yourself in the spotlight your claims of a right of privacy are limited. Public figures have already taken a stand against this situation by suing the press more and more. Of course, this is something that could be changed if the level of morals in the media raised.
	Intrusion claims that result in suing the media often concern the newsgathering process that is to say the wrongful use of tape recorders, cameras and other equipment used for this purpose. The method of obtaining information is something that the reporter has to take in consideration. If we are to give an example of this, one thing that comes to a lot of people's minds is of course the late Diana, Princess of Wales - described by the Earl Spencer as "the most hunted person of the modern age". Her death is said by a lot of people to be the media's fault - or especially the paparazzi', who hunted her the last days of her life. But they would of course not exist if there was not a public demand for this type of pictures; this is what sells. The case concerning Diana's death is now closed, and the paparazzi are left without charges. But an event like this must result in a law that will prevent such intrusions. On the other hand, it must be said that Princess Diana herself, after her divorce from Prince Charles, deliberately worked to get the press on her side. And it was told that her manipulating of the media was widely recognised. But as she said herself, she resented the intrusions by the paparazzi, but she got on very well with the tabloid staff photographers. 
	A photograph, as well as interview materials, which have a written release may be used. Therefore it is of course essential that a reporter gets such a release. There can be no invasion of privacy if a person consents, as long as the person is not a minor or in any other way not able to give consent. A release is of course something you have to get in the world of advertising. To get a public figure to do a commercial for your product may in most cases rise the sales figures of it. But to use a famous person's name or likeness without consent to sell a product is usually an invasion of privacy. But at the risk of being sued, this it not common these days.
	So what overall conclusion can we draw from this? Well, we can all agree that there has to be a freedom of speech in the media, but only to a certain extent. When it is obvious that it is an intrusion of privacy, this must be taken seriously. The standards of the laws that concern this must be kept at a high level. We can clearly see that the individual's right to privacy and the right of freedom of speech often clash. Everyone, famous or not, must feel that they have some privacy. The individual's right of privacy must be considered before the public interest.
</doc>