OP-ED Opinions 

News24.com | Condoms, wine and birthday cards: Are public figures entitled to privacy?

2019-07-09 15:44

It is important to distinguish between what interests the public and that which is in the public interest. There is a difference, and media outlets often confuse the two in their desperation to keep circulation numbers up, writes Melanie Verwoerd.

Last Wednesday veteran journalist, Marianne Thamm,
published a story under the title “Revolutionary trash sometimes requires trash journalism, literally
in Daily Maverick.

Following a tip-off, Marianne had gone to a guest house
in Camps Bay, which the EFF had apparently booked out for six days during SONA.
Shortly after the members of the EFF had vacated the guest house, 14 bags of
trash were put outside on the pavement. Marianne loaded seven of these bags into
her car and later, with some witnesses present, went through the trash.

In it she found, among other things, a large number of
very expensive empty alcohol bottles, numerous sales receipts and tags from
Zara and H&M, bank stubs, boarding passes from a senior EFF member, used
and unused condoms, etc.

After the publication of the story, a social media storm
erupted. Predictably, opinions were divided. To many this was just a further
affirmation of the moral corruption of the EFF. However, others questioned
Marianne’s right to go through the trash.

For me the story (and debate) brought up painful
memories. Nine years ago, my partner in Ireland died unexpectedly. Since he was
a famous and beloved broadcaster, there was extreme (and I use the word
deliberately) public interest in anything surrounding his death.

About three weeks after his death, one of the Irish
tabloids published a seven-page spread which included photographs of
handwritten birthday cards and letters I had written to Gerry. The paper claimed
that someone had found the cards in a skip and handed them in to them. However,
later the journalist involved admitted in an interview that he had emptied the
contents of a rubbish bin outside of Gerry’s house into his car and found these
cards amongst them.

He described it as the biggest “scoop” of his
journalistic career. For me, it was one of the most painful invasions of my
privacy.

Of course the paper claimed it was in the public interest,
and that both of us were public figures and as such had a very diminished – or possibly
no – right to privacy.

So this raises the question: “Does a public figure
have any right to privacy?”

Having discussed the EFF story with many people over the
last few days, almost everyone agreed that the answer is no. They all felt that
once someone becomes a public figure, and specifically an elected representative,
s/he is fair game.

I don’t agree. Politicians as well as other public
figures still have the right to ask whether or not a story is in the public
interest and demand protection of their privacy if it is not.

It is important to distinguish between what interests the
public and that which is in the public interest. There is a difference, and
media outlets often confuse the two in their desperation to keep circulation
numbers up.

The
basic definition of public interest is: “The welfare of the general public (in contrast to the
selfish interest of a
person, group, or firm) in which the whole society has a stake…” In other
words, it is that which could and most likely would impact on the greater welfare
of society.

I would argue that publishing my
birthday cards was not in the public interest. Yes, there was enormous public
interest in them, but the
interest was purely voyeuristic. We had kept these things intensely private and
they should have remained so.

Equally, the romantic and sexual
relations of public figures (including politicians) might interest the public but
as long as they involve
consenting adults, are not abusive and not of a nature that might compromise
national security, surely they should remain private? Information around family and in particular minor children is also
rarely, if ever, in the public interest.

So what then in the case of the EFF trash story? Apart
from the condoms, I believe that the information in the article was in fact in the
public interest and that it was important for the greater welfare of our
country that it be exposed.

The point is NOT that it proves EFF elected officials
like to drink or shop or stay in expensive places. Their voters might not like
it, but they have as much of a right as any other citizen to do so.

However, if
their private activities reveal a significant gap between their political
stances and their actions – in other words that their public pronouncements are
hypocritical – then it is surely in the public interest that this hypocrisy be
exposed.

As elected
officials and members of a political party, they are pushing hard for certain
policy changes in government. In many instances the mere fact that these issues
have been raised formally by the party, has had an impact on the country. The
best example of this is the EFF’s wish to have foreign ownership banned in South Africa. Yet, according
to Thamm’s article they chose to pay R60 000 for six days in a guest house belonging
to a foreign national.

Early this year, EFF supporters trashed H&M
stores and Julius Malema triumphantly said afterwards: “Any business or
person that supports racism must know that we are coming for them.” Yet,
it seems from the clothing tags and receipts in the trash that the leadership
has no problem shopping at that same store.

Equally so, with the EFF election manifesto pushing for “The
Illegalisation of Alcohol Advertisement Bill, which will end the celebration
and promotion of alcohol consumption in South Africa”, it seems a tad
hypocritical to down your pre-SONA sorrows with Meerlust Rubicon and expensive
French (!!) champagne.

So yes, in this case, we had the right to know. But it is
a slippery slope and we must tread carefully. I would be the first one to
criticise the media if they, for example, published the home addresses of EFF (or
any other party’s) members. Or if they published photos of their minor children
without their parents’ consent. We should be very thankful that we have limited
exposure to tabloid media in this country. Long may it last.

– Melanie Verwoerd is a former ANC MP and South African Ambassador to Ireland.

** Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to voices@news24.com with your name, profile picture, contact details and location. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers’ submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

Please follow and like us:
error

Related posts

Leave a Comment