Why Shatter should remember Romney in privacy debate
Now you may be wondering just how anyone could link the US presidential candidate to Shatter’s threat to introduce new privacy laws to put manners on the Irish media (bizarrely as a result of the invasion of the privacy of a British royal by one Irish newspaper).
Well here’s how: the Republican Mitt Romney had his privacy invaded by the release this week of a secretly made video of him speaking to wealthy friends at an invitation only lunch to raise money for his campaign to secure the US presidency.
The video is sensational and should prove to be the defining moment of his campaign when he fails to unseat President Barrack Obama.
Romney gratuitously insulted what he regarded as 47% of the electorate, describing them as freeloaders, “dependent upon the government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”. He claimed that the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income tax “will vote for the president no matter what”. He continued: “So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect . . . My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Now here’s the point: Romney did not expect that his comments would be recorded, or that someone would be persuaded to make the video recording available to someone who distributed it then via the media. The US has strong freedom of the press laws, so it would have been impossible for him to prevent publication of the tape, which happened on the Mother Jones website only this week. But imagine if he had been able to fall back on some sort of privacy laws that prevented the broadcast of his comments on the basis that he had not agreed to the taping of them and their subsequent broadcast? Alan Shatter has told us previously that he wants to strike “a proper balance between the rights of individuals and the public interest“, that “what is needed is balanced legislation that does nothing to inhibit proper investigative journalism.”
Based on that, you may hope that he would not draw up laws that could be exploited by politicians and wealthy businessmen to suppress the broadcast or publication of the truth. But I would be fearful.
Here’s why: as a journalist I have been threatened with legal action over the publication or broadcast of stories that the subject admitted to being correct but which they said should remain private. I believed the stories were in the public interest and fortunately my employers agreed that it was important to bring the information into the public domain, despite the threat of being caught up in expensive litigation being brought against us by the wealthy subjects of these legitimate stories.
The threat of being tied up in expensive and lengthy proceedings is often a deterrent to publication or broadcast, particularly if the subject has deeper pockets than the media organisation (which is often the case these days). The idea that a newspaper or broadcaster can publish anything as long as it is accurate and true is not necessarily the case if the wealthy can fall back on privacy arguments.
Remember when journalist Sam Smyth detailed back in 1996 how businessman Ben Dunne had bunged hundreds of thousands of pounds (as it was then) the way of then Government minister Michael Lowry? The information was published because it was proven to be true by official documents but I remember at the time that some people argued that it should not have been published: the information was confidential to Lowry because it pertained to his family home and was therefore a private matter. That was clearly nonsense and a public interest was served by his removal as minister.
Our constitution explicitly provides a right to privacy and further support has been provided by Irish case law and the findings of the European Court of Human Rights. But Shatter is now talking about the reintroduction of a Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats bill from 2006 that was dropped because it was found to be so lacking. Shatter will find some support though for his comment that “it is clear that some sections of the print media are either unable or unwilling in their reportage to distinguish between ‘prurient interest’ and ‘the public interest’.”
That is unfortunately true.
The problem is that sections of the media provide the authorities with opportunities to tarnish it all with the same brush… and then attempt to clamp down on all even when they are doing things that are in the public interest.
But if invading privacy means the publication of tapes such as that of Romney appealing to his millionaire mates and dissing the less well-off, then I’m all for it.
Some years ago I came across a quote that has served me usefully in many of the stories upon which I’ve reported. It goes like this: “when someone tells you it’s not the money, it’s the principle, it usually means that it’s about the money.”
This saying has proven very useful in watching all of the activity surrounding the Irish Daily Star over the last week. Principle has been cited as a reason for the publication of photographs of British royal Kate Middleton in a state of undress in a private location, but also as a reason for condemnation of the publication by both co-owners of the paper. It has been used to justify the suspension of editor Michael O’Kane.
And it led to Shatter’s intervention as described above. In all cases money was the motivating factor (except for Shatter’s where it was political opportunism).
Editors are driven by many things — and I write from the experience of six and a half years editing the now defunct Sunday Tribune between 1996 and 2002 — but these include being first with a story that no rival publication else has, driving sales as high as possible and creating attention for the product in a bid to persuade purchasers to return again.
Any editor in O’Kane’s shoes last Friday would have been sorely tempted to do as he did. I imagine that O’Kane must have anticipated some complaints but may have worked on the Ryanair principle that there is no such thing as bad publicity if it heightens awareness of the brand.
The hypocritical statements of Richard Desmond, proprietor of Northern & Shell, 50% owner of the joint venture, would be laughable if they didn’t threaten about 100 jobs at the Irish paper. The pornographer’s complainants about the use of the topless photos appears to have been driven by his desire to exit from the joint venture at least as much as by his distaste for the actions. And if he had not threatened closure of the Irish Daily Star I doubt if we’d have heard a dicky-bird from Independent News and Media. Its “principled” stand of condemning and suspending its own editor appears a tactical one to protect its investment in the newspaper.
All of which is understandable. But let’s dress it up as being about principle when it’s about money.
* The Last Word with Matt Cooper is broadcast on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 4.30pm to 7pm.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
