It might seem a touch peculiar to be able to find similarities between two apparently disparate stories, but what can I say – that’s the way my brain rolls.
One of the two stories in question over that past fortnight has been the call to reveal the identity of one of the killers of James Bulger; the other is the recent divulging of Mark Owen’s affairs.
Before anyone kicks off saying that it’s deeply distasteful to compare the two, I’m going to make the argument that both stories highlight a concept that’s hugely important in journalism: public interest.
Talking about the case of Owen in PR Week, PHA Media senior consultant Phil Taylor spoke about how well the case had been handled by Owen’s team: ‘The Sun clearly had evidence on Mark, and he’s clearly done a deal. But coming out with it all at once stops the drip-drip of scandal stories. He’s drawn a line under it.”
The case may well have been well-handled by the PRs involved, but an interesting point to consider here is whether the Sun should have run the story at all.
Currently, there’s no formal definition of public interest. The term’s generally taken to mean “common wellbeing” – a matter can be said to be in the public interest if it has the potential to “adversely affect any person at any time in their life in any situation” if it’s not put into the public arena; the National Union of Journalists has its own definition that it lists here.
Because it has no strict definition, it’s become a little too easy for media outlets to use the concept as rather a post hoc defence when accused of printing stories that they maybe shouldn’t have – something that I imagine could apply to the Owen case because I would argue that both stories I’ve referred to here probably, actually, aren’t in the public interest.
There’s a huge difference between something that’s in the public interest and something that’s merely interesting to the public. And whilst a story about a supposedly squeaky-clean, ex-boy band member having extra-marital affairs might be thrilling in its minutiae, it has no bearing on the wellbeing of the British public at large.
Likewise, the current identity of John Venables isn’t something that the public has a right to know. What possible public interest can be served by making that information widely available? If he has, as suggested, committed other crimes, he should be tried by a jury on the basis of the evidence in that case; not on feelings of vengeance related to one past. We don’t have a right to know who he is, merely because we quite fancy knowing.
Turning the concept on its head, it’s also worth bearing in mind that ‘public interest’ works both ways. Whilst it might be in the public interest to print a particular story, any media outlet using this as a defence must in this case be absolutely certain that it’s in full possession of the correct facts (if that’s not a tautology). Because, surely, printing such a piece that may mislead presumably flies in the face of the concept; it can’t be in the public interest to be misled.
Journalists and PRs alike need to know that what they’re printing – and handling in print – isn’t just feeding our curiosity if there’s something more fundamental at stake.
