In the media in recent times there have been many stories surrounding the subject of privacy. We have seen news stories that have shown big conglomerates such as Rupert Murdoch violating the boundary between media and public in relation to privacy. Murdoch hacked into people's mobile phones to gain access to information that would be unobtainable to them through other legal methods of investigation. This relates to
Maslow's theory of the
six-level hierarchy of human needs. He ranks
security and safety as the second highest need, other cognitive theories show that humans try to
maximise stimulation such as exploration and curiosity. This can be used to explain Murdoch's actions despite his
autocratic behaviour.
Lee Rigby is a solidier that was attacked and beheaded on the streets of London by two muslim extremists. When the BBC released the story to the public they shown CCTV footage of the incident, this is a violation of the privacy of the deceased. This is because they have shown the footage of his murder for all the world to see and his loved ones have seen this on the news, this is something that his loved ones should only have the access to. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this particular case. This story can be related to the
Uses and Gratifications theory as BBC received significant negative press for their decision to air the footage and upset the family and friends of Lee Rigby. Their reactions shows that they have not restricted by their actions and have chosen to openly question the
conglomerates decision to air such footage. The link also shows CCTV pictures that were taken which the BBC have also decided to make public.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-25448466#2
Another incident that was massive in British media was the Hillsborough disaster where 96 Liverpool supporters lost their lives at an FA cup semi-final. It was released in
The Sun that Liverpool supporters were responsible for the deaths of the supporters and that they looted the bodies of the dead. This article publicly damaged the memories of the deceased, and the names of the people who died was made public. However this story opposes
Herbert Marcuse's Effects model, as Liverpool supporters started a campaign called 'Justice for the 96' where they public fought those claims and also claimed a police conspiracy regarding what actually happened that day.
They pleaded for documents to be released which did prove that Margaret Thatcher covered up a conspiracy that was the police's fault that the supporters died. This prompted a release from The Sun apologising for the article they released after the incident. The people of Merseyside fought what the media told them and they prevailed, this has also led to The Sun newspaper being infamous in Liverpool and the people refuse to purchase the newspaper.
Sticking with Merseyside there has been a lot of publicity surrounded the murder of 2 year-old James Bulger. The youngest murderer in British history, Jon Venables has received a lot of publicity regarding the murder. It has been revealed that the government has spent £1 million on four separate secret identities for the murderer. Privacy is an issue with this case as it relates to
Reception theory and recognises the
audience as active. The public has used the information given to them from the media and have openly discredited the government for hiding the identity of one of the most infamous murderer's in the country. There was also big coverage and even more government criticism when it was revealed Venables was returning to prison for possession of child pornography. It recently came out that Venables claimed Bulger's mother is to blame for the toddlers death because she left him alone. The secret identity of the murderer has been breached more than once (evident through the fact he has had four identities) and emphasises that the life of this man will not be as private as the government would like it to be.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/james-bulger-killer-jon-venables-5038127
Finally one of the biggest British events of recent times is the London riots that arose after a policeman murdered an innocent civilian. This particular case coincides with
Curran and Seaton's theory Power without responsibility. This explores the contrast between
neophiliacs who welcome the change of new media technologies optimistically, and
cultural pessimists who are sceptical to change. It was revealed in The Guardian that the main method of communication to organise the riots was social media. The police discovered conversations on
Facebook and Twitter where rioters where organising where they were going to protest. However the main method of organisation was the
BBM messaging service for Blackberry mobile phones.
This shows how the neophiliacs have embraced the
new media technologies and used them to their advantage to orchestrate one of the biggest British riots in recent times. This relates to privacy as the rioters where actually hindered through their methods of communication as
social media and
instant messaging services store conversations on their database making it accessible to the authorities, despite reading personal messages being an invasion of privacy the police done so for the protection of the public and local businesses in comparison to Murdoch's motives; representing that there is a double standard dependant on motivation.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/28/uk-riots-twitter-facebook
I think that there is evidence such as the Murdoch case that suggests that big media conglomerates abuse their power to infiltrate the privacy of the general public. However there is a double standard as police hacked into private instant messaging conversations to stop the riots that were being orchestrated in London. This is because I believe the intentions contrast as the police's motivation was democratic and Murdoch's autocratic however this can change dependant on personal perception. Additionally there is the case of Hillsborough where they refused to believe the stories in The Sun newspaper and protested until they got the justice that they fought for.
