Bryers’ brothel brouhaha.
When the Herald on Sunday published a story on disgraced businessman, Mark Bryers, the focus of the piece was not on his dodgy business practices but rather his fondness for visiting prostitutes, and the decadent manner in which he lived.
The piece ran March 9, 2008 and was part of a series on the fall of property investment company, Blue Chip, and the millions of dollars owed to investors.
Mark Bryers was one of the founders of Blue Chip and lived a lavish lifestyle from its success. When the tide turned, however, he became a target for attack.
The media sometimes has a perverse obsession with airing peoples’ dirty laundry under the guise of public interest.
In reporting an individual’s lifestyle there are ethical considerations involved. Information that could damn a person should be in the public interest and not just gossip.
A private life should remain private, providing the behaviour is not affecting the business.
The story exposing Mark Bryers fondness for brothels shows that information not relevant to a case can still be published if it is seen as being timely or topical.
The Herald on Sunday story, by journalist Jane Phare, regarding Bryers brothel trips said “the revelations come as thousands of distressed Blue Chip investors are still waiting to hear if they will see any of the millions of dollars owed on deals involving 2000 properties after the liquidation of 20 companies”.
The public has a right to know exactly how and why Mark Bryers could get into the position where investor’s life-savings were lost but if his dalliances with prostitutes had nothing to do with the failure of Blue Chip then why is it in the public interest?
Phare’s story also said, “Mr Bryers lives in a $3 million home in Remuera and drives a silver Mercedes. He is a member of the Remuera Golf Club (with a 10 handicap) and plays the occasional game at Gulf Harbour where he has plans to build a five-star luxury resort”.
It seems that the purpose of this article is to portray Bryers as nefarious and Machiavellian, living a life of luxury while the ‘mum and dad’ investors suffer. Where is the ethics in pushing this line?
An attempt at objectivity in journalism is noble. Objectivity is an attempt at neutrality and highlighting issues without an obvious partisan leaning. If journalists can accomplish this, it goes a long way towards publishing the truth, and not just an individual’s truth.
In news articles there should not be implications of low moral fibre or acting outside socially contrived norms, the purpose of the news is to report facts. The media should act in a watchdog role but not as moral compass.
Objectivity is controversial as many believe that inherent biases are impossible to ignore and will affect the types of stories that are written and the angles that are taken; that any attempt at charting a middle road will only highlight the bias of journalists.
But, journalists should intend to be virtuous in their reporting, if objectivity is too difficult to achieve then they need to attempt to portray accuracy, balance and fairness. A fair presentation of diverse views and alternative viewpoints is necessary because that is how journalists will portray truth the best.
When contacted by Te Waha Nui, Phare said that due to legal issues she would be unable to speak specifically regarding the Mark Bryers story but that she “pared down the story” until what ran was what had been okayed by lawyers and the editorial team. Phare said, a lot of money is spent on legal fees to ensure what is reported isn’t defamation.
But if all that was available was a story of limited public relevance why was anything run?
Phare said stories are weighed up individually for topicality and how much information there is available.
She said when weighing up the stories, timeliness is a big part. Information that might not run in a years’ time would be run while a story was hot.
Miriyana Alexander, assistant editor of the Sunday Star Times, said, “It can often be frustrating for journalists not being able to publish a full story once lawyers have got hold of it.”
Alexander said, “It comes down to a judgement call in balancing when it is worth publishing a story even after it has been watered down”.
Journalists’ judgement may be affected if they have a story that is particular exciting and could make them lose sight of their ethical considerations.
The New Zealand Press Council website says that “there is no more important principle than freedom of expression. In a democratically governed society the public has a right to be informed.” This information naturally comes mostly from the media.
It goes on to say, however, that “individuals also have rights and sometimes they must be balanced against competing interests such as the public's right to know”.
Because of the un-publishable information in the Bryers case what may have been interesting to the public is not necessarily in the public interest. Bryers business practice was not under scrutiny in that particular piece so why attack his lifestyle?
The public’s right to know is perhaps viewed more strongly for journalists who see their view as watchdog and whistle-blower, they may believe the public needs to know information that is outside of the public interest.
As Phare says, “there is no hard and fast rulebook on journalism ethics” so it is generally up to the integrity of the journalist and caution of the legal team as to what is and is not ethical.
A problem in reporting on the lifestyle of a person is not that they will be affected but rather those around them. There is potential for Bryers’ family to suffer because of the exposure of private information in the public domain. This is one of the big worries about this type of reporting.
An individual may be left relatively unharmed by the exposure of salacious news but their family could be targeted for something they had no involvement in.
Max Mosley is another who has faced the wrath of the media, being targeted for allegedly being involved in ‘Nazi sex games’.
Mosley, chairman of the FIA, was filmed having a five prostitute orgy. He was a controversial character and had enemies in Formula 1 but when the media targeted him they should have focussed on his business practice, not his private business.
Mosley has faced criticism all his life as the son of British fascist Oswald Mosley so being negatively portrayed by the media is nothing new to him but, the story is not about Mosley acting improperly in his position but rather his after-hours activities, which has only little relevance to the public.
Journalists must retain ethical standards so they are contributing meaningfully to the public sphere. There should be an avoidance of sensationalism and an attempt at reporting factually and impartially. Yellow journalism should have ended with William Randolph Hearst but perhaps sometimes the need for a scoop outweighs an individual’s rights.
