Media Ethics

Understanding Archard’s View on Privacy and the Public Interest

In his work, Archard explores the complex issue of privacy and when, if ever, it is justifiable to breach it for the public good. The main focus

of his argument is that privacy should generally be respected, but there are situations where breaching it might be justified, particularly

when it serves a clear and proven public interest, such as exposing crime, corruption, or negligence. However, Archard also examines the

role of gossip and public curiosity, particularly around personal matters like sexual behavior, and argues that while these topics might hold

some social value, they should not be used to justify invading someone’s privacy.

This essay breaks down Archard’s ideas on when privacy can be compromised, the impact of exposing private details, and whether public

curiosity can justify such invasions. Through this, we will see that while privacy is a fundamental right, its breach might sometimes be

considered if it serves a broader, more important societal purpose.

When Is It Justifiable to Breach Privacy?

Archard begins by asserting that breaching someone's privacy can only be justified when it serves a proven public interest. This means that

the release of private information should be done only when it contributes to societal good—for example, revealing corruption, exposing

criminal activities, or addressing serious negligence in public office.

Public Interest and Moral Standards

A key idea in Archard’s argument is that breaching someone's privacy is more acceptable when the matter directly relates to public well-

being. For example, if a politician is involved in fraud or corruption, exposing those facts could prevent harm to society and the public. If

someone is engaging in criminal behavior or acts that endanger others, publicizing this information can be important for safety and

accountability.

However, Archard cautions that personal immoral acts, like adultery or private sexual behavior, do not have the same justifiable reasoning.

For example, if a public figure cheats on their partner, it is usually seen as an invasion of privacy to disclose these details. Archard believes

that personal morality should not automatically dictate someone’s professional capabilities, especially when the private act does not affect

their public duties.

In short, privacy breaches are only acceptable when they reveal something that genuinely impacts society, such as preventing harm,

uncovering corruption, or holding someone accountable for their actions in the public sphere.

The Problem with Exposing Personal Immorality

Archard discusses a few situations where the breach of privacy is often justified but may actually be unjustifiable. These situations mostly

concern sexual misconduct and whether revealing these details about public figures serves any real public interest.

Outdated Views on Sexual Misconduct

One argument that Archard tackles is the idea that immoral personal behavior, such as adultery, should be exposed if it shows that someone

is unfit for public office. Historically, society often believed that a politician’s or public figure’s private life reflected their public capability

and moral standing. However, Archard argues that these views are outdated and impractical. In today’s world, an individual’s private actions

—such as engaging in an affair or having a non-traditional relationship—do not necessarily indicate that they are unfit for public service or

untrustworthy.
Moreover, the idea that private sexual behavior impacts a person’s ability to do their job effectively, especially in the context of public office,

is no longer as convincing as it once was. Many public figures have led personal lives that are not exemplary or traditional, but this does not

necessarily mean they are incapable of performing their public duties.

Hypocrisy and Public Figures

Another argument Archard addresses is the exposure of hypocrisy. Often, public figures who publicly oppose certain behaviors (like

adultery, divorce, or LGBTQ rights) are exposed when it is revealed that they privately engage in those same behaviors. The reasoning behind

exposing hypocrisy is that such figures are seen as “living a lie,” and their public influence may mislead society.

Archard, however, questions whether this really serves the public interest. In his view, hypocrisy should only be revealed if it has harmful

consequences. For instance, if a politician publicly speaks against something but secretly engages in the same behavior, it might undermine

their credibility and influence public policy. In this case, exposing their hypocrisy may be in the public’s interest, because it can prevent the

individual from misleading the public or passing harmful policies based on false moral standards.

But, if the hypocrisy does not affect others—such as when a politician’s private life has no bearing on their professional actions or policies—

then exposing their behavior becomes less about public interest and more about satisfying curiosity.

The Public’s Curiosity and Gossip

A major part of Archard’s argument concerns the role of gossip in society. Gossip is often seen as trivial and intrusive, especially when it

involves private sexual behaviors or personal indiscretions. However, Archard acknowledges that gossip can serve a social purpose, even if it

does not always serve the public interest directly.

Gossip and Community Values

While gossip may seem like a waste of time, Archard suggests that it plays a role in reinforcing social norms and community values. For

example, gossip about public figures may expose their flaws and imperfections, showing them to be ordinary human beings rather than

flawless heroes. This can challenge unrealistic or overly idealized perceptions that the public holds of celebrities, politicians, and other

public figures.

In this sense, gossip can contribute to social cohesion by showing that even powerful or influential people are not immune to the same flaws

and struggles as ordinary individuals. By exposing these flaws, gossip can demystify public figures and create a more relatable

understanding of them.

Gossip as a Moral Check

Additionally, gossip can serve as a form of moral check within society. For instance, if a public figure who claims to live by high moral

standards is found to be secretly engaging in behavior that contradicts these standards, it can prompt important societal discussions about

what is considered moral or immoral. These discussions help shape public attitudes toward behavior, encouraging people to reflect on what

is truly important for ethical conduct.

However, Archard warns that gossip can also have negative effects. It can lead to judgmental attitudes, particularly when the focus is on

personal, private matters like sexual behavior, instead of focusing on a person’s professional abilities or the harm they cause in society. For

example, in Britain, media often focuses on the personal lives of public figures in a way that promotes a culture of judgment rather than

productive moral reflection.

Does Public Curiosity Justify Privacy Invasions?

is interested in certain details of a public figure’s private life—especially when it comes to sexual matters—it does not mean that this

information should be disclosed.

In fact, Archard argues that curiosity should be distinguished from genuine public interest. Public interest refers to matters that have a

direct impact on society, such as a public figure’s criminal behavior or corruption. On the other hand, public curiosity often centers on

trivial matters, such as a celebrity’s relationships or personal indiscretions. While these may satisfy the public’s desire for scandal or

entertainment, they do not contribute meaningfully to societal well-being or ethics.

Conclusion: Privacy vs. Public Interest

In conclusion, Archard argues that there are few valid reasons to breach a person’s privacy, especially when it comes to sexual behavior or

personal matters. While gossip and public curiosity can sometimes serve important social functions, like reinforcing community values or

challenging unrealistic perceptions of public figures, these do not justify invading someone’s privacy. The fundamental right to privacy

should be respected, and breaches should only occur when there is a clear public interest at stake—such as exposing corruption, preventing

harm, or ensuring accountability.

Ultimately, while public curiosity and gossip can shape social discussions about morality and values, they should not be the basis for

justifying an invasion of privacy. The focus should remain on issues that genuinely affect society and the common good, rather than

satisfying the public's desire for scandal or trivial knowledge. By balancing privacy with public interest, Archard advocates for a more

ethical approach to handling private information and public figures.