By Grace Hogsten
Elm Staff Writer
Prince Harry, Elton John, and five other individuals are suing the Daily Mail for using illegal reporting tactics to access restricted information.
According to the Guardian, “The allegations of illegal behaviour include voicemail interception, the tapping of landline telephones, the blagging of private medical records by pretending to be the individual in question, and even commissioning breaking and entry into private property.”
Many records are publicly available, but those that are not, such as medical records, are off-limits for reporters. Reporters can interview sources for such information, but should not lie or pay to access it.
Most of these illegal tactics were undertaken by private investigators hired by the Daily Mail, and not by Daily Mail journalists themselves, according to CNN.
This demonstrates the intentional, strategic nature of the Daily Mail’s techniques. The publication hired private investigators to intercept restricted information. This case is not one of a dedicated reporter taking risks for the benefit of the public, but of a publication looking to make money off of salacious stories about celebrities.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, journalists should “[a]void undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”
The Daily Mail is accused of using illegal, secretive methods to get personal information on public figures. This information is not vital to the public interest; the story does not justify the means of reporting.
According to the BBC, “The High Court was told Sir Elton and Mr. Furnish’s landline at their home in Windsor was tapped by a private investigator on the instructions of Associated Newspapers Limited.”
Though John is a well-known figure, his day-to-day conversations and actions are not the business of the public. People may be curious about John’s phone conversations, but they are not entitled to satisfy that curiosity.
According to CNN, “[A] document filed on Prince Harry’s behalf…said [Prince Harry] was ‘troubled that, through Associated’s unlawful acts, he was largely deprived of important aspects of his teenage years…the prince had ‘suspicion and paranoia’ caused by the publication of articles by ANL using unlawfully gathered information.”
Prince Harry states that the Daily Mail found information about him ethically by speaking to sources. As a result, he believed that people in his life were speaking to the press behind his back.
Celebrities’ careers are sustained by their fame, and they cannot accept the positive effects of their notoriety while rejecting the negative effects. The public is interested in the lives of the celebrities they watch from afar, and often wants to know more than celebrities willingly reveal.
Nevertheless, celebrities do deserve privacy; at the very least, they deserve the privacy afforded to them by the law.
The public wants to know about the personal lives of celebrities, such as a prince whose lifestyle is funded by their government or an artist whose music they adore. However, this information does not need to be public, so reporters should not break the ethical code of journalism to expose it.
Journalists look for the truth in a story, so determination and resourcefulness are important skills for them to have as they conduct research and hunt for sources, especially when reporting on high-profile figures or covering events that are in the public interest.
However, a publication undermines its own credibility when it employs illegal and unethical strategies to find the information for a story. Unethically sourced information opens the door for reporters to add fabricated or unconfirmed information into a story.
When it comes to tabloids like The Daily Mail, both the journalists and the public should focus on ethics and how they are acquiring their information and sources. Thinking critically about these gossip platforms and whether or not the public needs to know this information will prevent invasion of privacy and unethical journalistic practices.