13. Privacy

The Code is divided into three sections. The first section says the public right to know often needs to be weighed against the privacy right of the people in the news. The second part calls on journalists to stick to the issue and the last part says intrusions and inquiries into an individual’s private life without the person’s consent are not generally acceptable unless public interest is involved. Public itself must be legitimate and not merely prurient and morbid curiosity. It says things concerning a person’s home, family, religion, tribe, health, sexuality, personal life and private affairs are covered by the concept of privacy except where these impinge upon the public.

According to Robinson (2002) the concept of privacy is multifaceted. One can apply the label of privacy interest to several understanding of privacy. In addition to control your personal data, there are rights to have the moral freedom to exercise full individual autonomy and the right to solitude, secrecy and anonymity.[1] Discussing the concept of privacy Graham (1999) says there are several competing issues to address including culture, law, proof of identity and trust.[2] Most African cultures have many unwritten rules about privacy and Kenyan journalists blindly obey them with the consequence that gives both politicians and celebrities a protection they would not enjoy in the Western world.

I believe this will not last long as African culture in Kenya is changing very rapidly opening the doors to Western values which now have become part of our lives. I also believe that very soon Kenyan journalists will venture into what Goodman (1992) calls the “fuzzy area where the freedom of the Press collides with an individual’s right to be left alone”.[3] No story about corruption, for example, can be successfully written about our political leaders without examining their personal data and that of their close relatives particularly their secret bank accounts in foreign countries. As the professional quality of journalism in Kenya improves with expanding training opportunities, there is bound to be a serious engagement in investigative journalism which will in fact be the name of the game in future.

In Kenya there has never been any major complaint against media intrusion into anyone’s private life. There are many people in public life about whom the people should know, but the media have chosen to leave them alone. Some of them have become rich too quickly and mysteriously and yet their personal data, which would have been of great interest, remain secret.

It is only for a brief period when journalists were concerned about President Mwai Kibaki’s private life that they started writing about his alleged second wife Mary Wambui. When he threatened to take the matter to court journalists decided to leave the story alone though it was of great public interest as allegations of misuse of public funds in providing Wambui with state security were made. Though the Code does not explain in details what invasion of privacy entails, Robinson suggests it is when (journalists) intrude upon personal affairs of another, where the matter made public is highly offensive to a reasonable person and there is insufficient public interest in having the information disclosed.[4]

When journalists are conducting investigations regarding a matter of personal nature they have to ask themselves whether the information they seek is truly of public interest. In Kenya it is becoming very popular for both newspapers and television stations to publish pictures taken by ordinary wananchi regarding a wide range of events. This is made possible by the increasing number of cell phone cameras in the country. The people taking the pictures and submitting them to newsrooms have no idea about the existence of the code of ethics for journalists. Some of the video footages originate from what can only be described as jua kali journalists and very often they violate the ethic of privacy particularly when the pictures are taken secretly without the knowledge of the people involved in the news.

Scassa (2007) suggests editors should always have the final word in selecting pictures from wananchi and removing inappropriate content before they are published. She says that the screening mechanism, quality control, verification measures and so forth should remain in effect.[5] Though there is likely to be serious concern about jua kali journalism intruding into people’s privacy, some of the pictures they submit to editors may soon play a positive role of making public officials such as politicians, public administrators and the police realize that whatever they do is in public view whether or not journalists are present. Despite the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in many parts of the world, Governments have always controlled the flow of information about people’s private lives. In the US there are laws that protect people’s private lives and the boundaries of these laws are expanding.[6]

In Kenya it may be useful to give both the free press and privacy equal protection depending on matters of public interest. Calvert (2005) says the primary role of the media in a democratic society is to fairly, truthfully, and comprehensively report to citizens on matters of public interest.[7] He says privacy and journalism often conflict for example the common law tort of intrusion or seclusion (which) restricts journalists’ ability to gather information while safeguarding individual privacy of both space and action. Calvert also sees the journalistic code of confidentiality as part of privacy because “ journalists often asserts and claim privacy interests of their own when gathering news such as keeping private and confidential the names of sources who have supplied them with important information.”[8]

The struggle between journalism and privacy threatens the very concept of self regulation. Hagerty (2003) argues that having eyed each other in the traditional distrust in the growing conflict between freedom of speech and personal privacy, the media and the law are on the verge of a struggle which could end in the collapse self regulation.[9] His fears are not, however, presntly relevant to Kenyan journalism or the little self regulation that is in the country mainly because journalists here do not treat private lives of people in the news as newsworthy enough to warrant investigation that would lead to publishable stories. In Britain the Human Rights Act has since 2000, given the people what most of the European Union citizens already had: legal right to free speech. It also handed them legal right to privacy and Hagerty says that rather than attempt to reconcile the two competing Articles at source, the framers of the legislations are allowing them to fight it out and have appointed the courts to referee.[10]

Though Kenya has not reached there yet it is just a matter of time before we puddle in the same canoe as the British journalists.







[1] Robinson, Allens Arthur. Focus Media. http://www.aar.com.au/. 2002. Visited in 2007.
[2] Graham, Ian. Putting Privacy in Context – an Overview, the Concept of Privacy and the Current Technologies. University of Toronto. 1999.
[3] Goodman, Walter. “Personal Privacy vs. Freedom of the Press” in the New York Times of October 8th 1992.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Scassa, Teresa. “Citizen Journalism” and Privacy. At http://www.idtrail.org/ visited in 2007.
[6] Halstuk, Martin E. “Press Rights Verses Privacy” in Columbia Journalism Review of January/February 2003.
[7] Calvert, Clay. “Victory for Privacy and Losses for Journalism?” in Journal of Law and Policy pp 649. 2005.
[8] Ibid
[9] Hagerty, Bill. “How Do We Balance Privacy with Freedom?” in British Journalism Review Vol. 14. No.1 , 2006 pages 3-6
[10] Ibid