A Journalist's Right

Last week Sandy Davidson, the professor for Communications Law at the School of Journalism, spoke to MU students about politics in the media. She lectured about a variety of events relating to this that ranged from the media’s silence on John F. Kennedy’s affairs to current coverage of the economic crisis.

At one point in the lecture, Davidson asked the students whether or not they believe that journalists are digging too deep into the personal affairs of politicians or if journalists should be digging deeper still. The question split the crowd roughly in half. This brings to attention a concern about whether journalists are becoming libelous in their quest for information.

Libel can be defined as the written publication of an untruth that is malicious and intends to harm a public figure’s reputation. This is different from slander, which is the oral defamation of an untruth.

I do realize that good arguments can be made that defend the privacy of political figures against prying journalists. While I can agree that at times reporters seem to be delving too deep into the personal matters of public figures, I don’t think this is avoidable nor should it be. Politicians and other public personalities more often than not choose their position in society. They must realize that going into politics invites their whole lives to public interest.

The general public naturally is curious about the activities of the people they have elected into office, and they have a right to be. Politicians willingly elect to be in the limelight. In doing so, they lose their right to complete privacy.

When journalists pry into the lives of political officials, they are performing a public service by providing the people with information that would otherwise be unavailable. This can also serve as a check on public officials because their indiscretions can become a public matter in the hands of a journalist. As long as journalists are not spreading lies, acting this way cannot be considered libel.