'Freedom of the Press is more important to society than the privacy of individuals'

'Freedom of the Press is more important to society than the privacy of individuals' Agree or Disagree ?

Freedom of the press is freedom of opinion and freedom of the media and communication. Freedom of the press allows the media to write their opinions, ideas and point of views.
Privacy allows a person to be alone and undisturbed and their actions confined to themselves. 
For example not for public knowledge or disclosure. 

The Leveson inquiry investigates the practices of journalists and looks at the ethics of UK media as well as the relationship between police and the press. The leveson inquiry feel that it is important to look into these practices to stick to media laws and ethics. 
(Privacy Law in UK)

Things are changing as result of the Leveson report. The current situation in the press i.e PCC regulating. The press complaints commission covers privacy and looks at maintaining a free and responsible press. One of the main benefits of self regulating press is that it combines high standards of ethical reporting with a free press.

Paul McMullen-"Privacy is for Paedos". 
Paul McMullen - Former News Of The World Journalist states that a privacy law would stop revealing the truth. Articles which invade privacy sell newspapers and are interesting to the public e,g articles for entertainment. Freedom of the press is important as it allows the public to know 'celeb gossip'. 
Steve Coogan-"Stones aren't in the public interest"
Steve Coogan says he was subject to a 'psychopathic sting'  by News Of the World editor. 
Notes contain details of girlfriends,  his bank account number and his bank transactions/pin.
He states that is is 'morally bankrupt'.  Freedom of the press is only to name & shame in order to sell newspapers for example exploiting celebrities without their permission. The press use the freedom of the press as a smoke screen to get away with things. 

Many celebrities share the same views against freedom of the press like Steve Coogan. 
Max Mosely says - Society don't accept news of the world, Tabloids shouldn't make decisions but a high court judge should and if it is separate to work is should remain private. Max Mosely was exploited by the press for his private 'Hitler' costume surrounded by prostitutes. 
Pete Doherty says - Press don't make you feel comfortable and they should accept responsibility. 

Events in the past have not fully developed ideas on freedom of the press vs privacy and it still remains a debate in society. Watergate in the 70s uncovered mass corruption but the investigation involved stalking and bugging phones. Does this alter your opinion on freedom of the press? The fact that the press used unethical methods to expose mass corruption supports freedom of the press suggesting that big 'in the public interest' breaking news stories could be uncovered. 

But unethical methods could be used to uncover 'interesting to the public' news stories. Pop star justin bieber calls for fresh restrictions on the media after paparazzi death. 
Pop star Miley Cyrus also pushes new law after photographer chasing Bieber pic is hit down by a car in LA.
  After the incident Justin said- "While I was not present nor directly involved with this tragic accident, my thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim. Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders, and the photographers themselves."
While Miley Cyrus said- "Hope this paparazzi/JB accident brings on some changes in '13 Paparazzi are dangerous! Wasn't Princess Di enough of a wake up call?!"

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press are important but so are peoples rights to privacy. It is one thing to report on a celebrity but it is another to mislead, intrude into private life and possibly cause danger. 

An online Poll on the situation with 'Protecting celebs from Press' states the publics opinions for & against.There are 100s of examples posted for and against by famous people and newspapers on the internet but here is what some of the public think...

Here is an example posted FOR in the argument:

Absoultey need more guidelines.

They're just people; no one deserves to be followed around while running errands with 10 people hounding you with cameras. If this happened less, maybe less celebs would become such crazy weirdos. If there were less paparazzi madness, maybe the celebs could actually be more at ease going out in public. This way, they could also have more opportunities to interact with fans in public without feeling so pressured. Afterall, isn't it all about the fans anyway?



Here is an example posted for AGAINST in the argument:

I do not think it's sensible to protect celebrities from the paparazzi with a designated personal safety zone, because they choose to live their lives in the public eye.

I think that if celebrities wish to protect themselves from the public, while out in public, they should have do so of their own accord and expense. If I needed security for some reason, like if I was feeling unsafe when out in public, it would be my problem and my problem only to deal with. If someone breaks the law and is violating a celebrity's rights, then it's up to the police to protect that person. But, otherwise, it should be left up to the celebrities to deal with. If you don't like all the attention, you chose the wrong career.



After researching the topic I have come to a conclusion on my opinion of the debate. Although i do not fully agree with the statement 'Freedom of the Press is more important to society than the privacy of individuals' I do not disagree either. I feel there should be some guidelines i.e laws in place to stop unethical investigations by the press for example phone hacking for stories which are interesting to the public , on the other hand I believe this is acceptable when the topic is in the public interest. Then , the police should be consulted first to avoid an incident like the Millie Dowler case with the phone hacking scandal giving the parents false hopes.
I do in fact believe that celebrities have chosen their lifestyle and if they rely on their fans to turn up to concerts/events and buy their work and merchandise for sky high prices while they drive around in flash cars theoretically payed by their fans, then i believe that their fans should be informed with plenty of interesting to the public stories. 
Celebrities should also stop and sign a few autographs and take a few photographs once in a while to avoid accidents like the 'bieber death'. If someone in the public eye have a publicist and doing all they can to be in the public eye then they should not expect a private life with their chosen career. In my opinion , surely all the money , flash cars and material items is worth having screaming fans and press begging for interviews. If you know that you're in the public eye then act responsibly to avoid bad publicity. 

Agree or Disagree? I can see sides for both so I am for freedom of the Press.