Just how much do we need to know? Looking back at past political campaigns, before the advent of mass multi-media communications and, what is now known as, investigative reporting, I question whether the current trend in total exposure is necessary, or indeed desirable.
What seemed to matter in the past was the candidates record of past public service and reputation of integrity. Their ability to articulate their political concerns and demonstrating qualities of leadership by putting their theories into practice, was what mattered most. Their personal experience, in education and employment, towards developing those qualities was of interest to the public. A stable family life was to be expected and perhaps, puritanically, their social comportment was at times cause for concern. ‘Bad’ behaviour could derail any hope of election to public office.
All that has changed. Candidates are now scrutinised to the nth degree. We seem to have become so used to lives being exposed ad nauseum by television and film dramas as well as hours of ‘reality’ television, that it seems perfectly reasonable to intrude as much as possible into the lives of others who put themselves anywhere near the public eye. There appears to be no limit to this intrusion; however, what might be of interest to the public, or some of the public, is not necessarily in the ‘public interest’. Which is why I ask again how much do we need to know?
There are many in the public eye who would argue that at some level there must be an expectation of privacy. It is suggested that, just as one might urge the punter to gamble responsibly, journalists should intrude responsibly. Enquiries do not necessarily have to be aggressive or combative, but should be to the point, bearing in mind what is actually in the public interest.
There is, whether one likes it or not, a public interest test which has been decided in a United Kingdom Court of Appeal judgement from 22nd November 2023 in The Department for Business and Trade v The Information Commissioner & Anor before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Lewis. It comes about as a result of a question around the proper interpretation of section 2(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The justices came up with a Public Interest Test:
(I have copied here quite of bit
of the judgment which relates to requests for information under the Freedom of Information
Act, because some of the definitions can apply, in my view, to the general
dissemination of information in all its aspects.)(It should also be noted that there is an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of the UK)
“The public interest here means the public good, it is not:
- what is of interest to the public; or
- the
private interests of the requester (unless those private interests reflect
what is the general public good, eg holding public authorities to
account).
Public interest arguments for maintaining the exemption must relate specifically to that exemption. For example, where the exemption is about prejudice to a particular interest there is an inherent public interest in avoiding that prejudice. However, there is not necessarily an inherent public interest where the exemption protects a particular class of information. There will always be a general public interest in transparency. There may also be a public interest in transparency about the issue the information relates to. You should consider any public interests that would be served by disclosing the information. If there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing, this may create a public interest in disclosure. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture. Arguments based on the requester’s identity or motives are generally irrelevant. Arguments that the information may be misunderstood if it were released usually carry little weight. The fact that other methods of scrutiny are available does not weaken the public interest in disclosure. Where other means of scrutiny have been used, apart from FOIA, this may however weaken the public interest in disclosure. There is a public interest in promoting transparency about the UK government and public authorities, although requesters do not have to be UK nationals or residents. There is a public interest in promoting transparency about the UK government and public authorities, although requesters do not have to be UK nationals or residents. You must consider the relative weight of the arguments for and against disclosure. This can be affected by: the likelihood and severity of any prejudice, the age of the information, how far the requested information will help public understanding, and whether similar information is already in the public domain. Where a qualified exemption applies and you do not wish to confirm nor deny that you hold the requested information, the decision to give a “neither confirm nor deny” response is itself subject to the public interest test. You must consider the balance of public interest in all the circumstances of the request.
To carry out the public interest test, it is necessary to understand what “the public interest” means in the context of FOIA.
The public interest can cover a wide range of values and principles relating to the public good, or what is in the best interests of society. Public interest can take many forms. For example, there is a public interest in:
* transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic processes
* good decision-making by public bodies,
* upholding standards of integrity
* ensuring justice and fair treatment for all,
* securing the best use of public resources, and
* ensuring fair commercial competition in a mixed economy.
However, these examples of the public interest do not automatically mean that you should disclose or withhold information. For example, an informed and involved public helps to promote good decision-making by public bodies. But those bodies may also need space and time in which to fully consider their policy options, to enable them to reach an impartial and appropriate decision, away from public interference. Revealing information about wrongdoing may help the course of justice, but investigations into wrongdoing may need confidentiality to be effective. This suggests that in each case, the public interest test involves identifying the appropriate public interests and assessing the extent to which they are served by disclosure or by maintaining an exemption.
The public interest is not necessarily the same as what interests the public. The fact that a topic is discussed in the media does not automatically mean that there is a public interest in disclosing the information about it that has been requested.”
In short scrutiny to promote public understanding and safeguarding the democratic process, good decision making, upholding standards of integrity, ensuring justice and fair treatment for all and securing the best use of public resources, seems to be what the public interest is truly about. If that is the case, then to what end is gossip and public curiosity about so called celebrity, or someone in the spotlight for their 15 minutes of fame, serving the public.
During the course of our elections, and in particular in the United States, we have seen an overflow of emotions, laughter and tears, adulation and condemnation accorded to the various candidates vying for public office. The camera and recorders are out in force in an attempt to provide transparency and accountability, all the while (we hope) promoting public understanding to safeguard democracy.
Are we all witnessing good decision making? Are we seeing higher standards of integrity? Do we believe the candidates are seeking justice and fair treatment for all and are they actually trying to secure the best use of public resources? I would suggest that these are the issues which must lie behind any statements relating to the economy, fair commercial competition, and the general health and welfare of the community. As to immigration, this is a matter which must also be dealt with, with the public interest in mind, and not pandering to the prejudice and xenophobic attitudes of the few.
Surprisingly the British public have reacted strongly against the anti-imigration chaos engendered by those few antisocial nationalists and have come out in some force to counteract the violence. In the United States the problem is smouldering. Mr Trump’s rhetoric about deranged patients from foreign asylums, thieves, drug dealers and murderers, continues his proclivity to incite hatred and division. The facts of his convictions and findings of liability have clearly indicated his continuing separation from any kind of integrity. The fact that a once proud political party has seen fit to promote him as a candidate for the highest public office in the United States is equally evidence of disintegration into an abyss without morality or reason, filled with ignorance, bile and prejudice.
It is clearly in the public interest to continue to expose him. This is not going low, as some would say. The fact that he is a felon, a dissembler, an admitted, as well as judged to be, sexual predator, should be sufficient evidence to remove him from the ballot. These are not invented insult and hyperbole. These are facts, on the record; yet, a large section of the American public seems not to care one way or the other. How any woman can bring herself to support this man, in any way, is beyond comprehension. I would have thought the feminine vote would be a no brainer, which, on reflection, is probably the case with anyone who will vote for him.
For those that do still have a brain, and who are able to vote on the 5th November 2024, I urge you to think of what is in the public interest, not only for the United States, but for the rest of the free world as well..
No comments:
Post a Comment