Is it ethical for newspapers to publish sensitive information if  it serves the public interest, even if  it compromises privacy or causes harm?

 Is it any of our business if a celebrity is suffering from a terrible disease? Do we have the right to know whether a famous musician is getting divorced? Are politicians entitled to stop journalists from publishing information that could ruin their reputation?

Some information is of interest to the public: in other words, it is something they find interesting and wish to find out more about. For example, where a famous TikToker lives, the inside of their homes and what they do during their private time: all of this entertains readers and viewers. 

The question is whether, or when, it is also in the public interest – a concept akin to the greater good - for it to be published and made available to the public. The public interest is determined by ethics: is it in the general interest, the best thing for society, to have the information published? 

This distinction between what is of interest to the public - we could also call it the private interest - and what is in the public interest - is key to answering our question, and working out whether publishing something is morally right even if it damages somebody's privacy or causes them harm. Different ethical approaches will define the public interest in their own ways, and lead to different conclusions as to whether publishing something is right or wrong.  

PUBLISHING SENSITIVE INFORMATION IN BRITAIN

Partly in reaction to the many scandals, numerous newspapers in Britain now belong to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), an independent regulator for the print and digital media. Ipso was set up after an even bigger row that involved some newspapers accessing the voicemails of some celebrities or prominent people without permission (the "phone hacking" scandal). 

Ipso enforces a strict Editor's Code to govern the limits of what journalists can publish, how they can obtain their material and to balance the right to free expression against the right to privacy. Readers and the public have the right to complain to Ipso if they believe that newspapers have breached the rules. Ipso can force newspapers to delete material or print corrections and pay fines. There were 8,045 complaints in 2023.

The Code makes a number of stipulations regarding journalistic ethics. It states that the Press "must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text." It stipulates that "everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications." This means that journalists aren't usually meant to write about private matters such as somebody's illness or personal problems (such as a divorce) unless that person has agreed to make their condition or situation public. If somebody announces their situation on a public forum, for example on Instagram, then it is fine to write about it. 

Of course, the public would love to find out more gossip about celebrities, but the Code introduces severe limitations on what and how this can be published. The Code states that  Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent." Journalists are not meant to publish private emails or text messages that they have obtained without the subject's permission. The Code also states that it "is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy." This means you can't take a photo peering into somebody's window, or use a drone to take pictures of them in their back gardens just for the fun of it, but you can publish pictures you take of them in a busy street or at a football match. 

The Code also regulates how information can be obtained. It states that the "press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent." Journalists should not normally engage in subterfuge, or pretend that they are not journalists, or use detective agencies and the like. 

There are very important exemptions to all of the restrictions outlined by Ipso, however, that allow journalists to override these limitations if the result is to further the public interest. According to the Ipso Editor's Code, the public interest includes detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety; protecting public health or safety; protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation; disclosing a person or organisation's failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject; Disclosing a miscarriage of justice; Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public; and Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above. There is also a public interest in freedom of expression itself. 

These exemptions are very important. They mean, for example, that it is fine to publish a text message obtained from a politician if it exposes corruption, lies, deceit or a break of promises. It is fine to publish images taken in a private place if they expose a scandal. It is fine to use subterfuge if that is the only way a corrupt policeman, or an organised crime ring, or a terrible injustice can be exposed - for example, a journalist can pretend to be a normal worker to expose how a company engages in scams. It is possible to take and publish pictures obtained by a drone flying over private property if they expose incompetence or a miscarriage of justice or something else that is in the public interest. 

The code accepts a very different trade-off between freedom of the press and privacy depending on which of the two cases we are in. When it comes to the public interest, privacy is only respected in certain limited cases; when it comes to the interest of the public, privacy is paramount. 

Is Ipso's approach the best way to decide whether it is right or not to publish sensitive information? Some of the world's most important philosophers have their own answers.