Learning objective

Students will evaluate the concept of “public interest” in journalism by distinguishing between news stories that serve the common good and those that merely entertain. They will analyse case studies to identify ethical considerations and justify decisions based on public interest.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to tell the difference between news that helps society and news that’s just little more than entertainment, and explain why some stories are important for everyone.
• Standards: To help students understand what “public interest” means in journalism.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Notice and wonder: Display a headline or brief excerpt from a news story. Ask students, “What do you notice? What do you wonder?” Give them a few minutes to think and discuss with a partner. Then, have several students share their observations and questions. Record these for all to see. Guide the conversation towards distinguishing between elements that serve the public interest and those that might simply entertain.

Direct instruction

• Define public interest: Begin by explaining the concept of “public interest” in journalism. Highlight its focus on societal relevance, the common good, and the distinction from mere entertainment. Use real-world examples, such as a news story about a public health issue versus celebrity gossip, to illustrate the difference. Encourage students to think critically about why certain stories are more impactful for society.
• Case study analysis: Present a case study involving a controversial news story. Describe the scenario, including key facts and ethical dilemmas. Ask students to identify elements that align with the public interest and those that do not. Facilitate a discussion on the ethical considerations journalists must weigh, such as privacy versus the public’s right to know. Use placeholders for where you will provide solution steps and guide students through the analysis.
• Public interest test: Introduce the concept of a “public interest test” that journalists use to decide whether to cover a story. Provide criteria such as correcting a significant wrong, enhancing public understanding, or promoting accountability. Present a hypothetical news scenario and have students apply the public interest test to determine if it should be reported. Discuss their reasoning and the potential impact on society.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a structured discussion to deepen their understanding of public interest in journalism.

• Think: Present a news headline or brief excerpt. Ask students to individually consider whether the story serves the public interest or merely entertains. Encourage them to jot down their thoughts and reasoning.
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their individual assessments. Instruct them to compare their reasoning and identify any differences in their evaluations.
• Share: Invite pairs to share their conclusions with the class. Facilitate a discussion that highlights diverse perspectives and reasoning.
• Clarify: As a class, clarify any misconceptions about public interest. Use examples from the discussion to reinforce the distinction between public interest and entertainment.
• Reflect: Ask students to reflect on how their understanding of public interest has evolved through the activity. Encourage them to consider how this understanding might influence their consumption of news.

Independent practice

• Case study evaluation: Provide students with a new case study involving a news story. Ask them to independently evaluate whether the story serves the public interest or merely entertains. Instruct them to apply the public interest test criteria discussed earlier.
• Written justification: Have students write a brief justification for their evaluation, citing specific elements of the story that align with or diverge from the public interest. Encourage them to consider ethical considerations and potential societal impacts.
• Peer review: Pair students to exchange their written justifications. Instruct them to review each other’s work, providing constructive feedback on the clarity and strength of the arguments presented.
• Reflection: Ask students to reflect on the feedback received and consider any revisions to their initial evaluation. Encourage them to think about how this exercise might influence their future news consumption and understanding of journalism’s role in society.

Assignment

Ask students to answer these questions:

1. How can you tell if a news story serves the public interest?
2. Why is it important for journalists to consider the public interest when reporting?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Here are some suggested answers:

• Suggested answer to Question 1: A news story serves the public interest if it addresses issues affecting public well-being, safety, or accountability.
• Suggested answer to Question 2: Considering the public interest ensures that journalism contributes to a well-informed society and holds power accountable.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by having students explore complex case studies involving ethical dilemmas in journalism. Challenge them to debate the nuances of public interest versus privacy, especially in cases involving public figures. Suggest they research historical examples where journalism significantly impacted society, and present their findings to the class.
• Striving learners: Simplify case studies and provide clear, structured examples of public interest versus entertainment. Use visual aids and graphic organisers to help them categorise news stories. Pair them with peers for collaborative analysis and provide sentence starters to support their written justifications. Offer additional guidance during discussions to ensure comprehension.
• Background reading: We recommend you read the article Journalism and the public interest before adapting this lesson plan.

Notable definitions

• Public interest: The welfare or well-being of the general public; a concept in journalism that focuses on reporting news that affects society’s health, safety, and governance, rather than what merely entertains.
• Ethical considerations: The moral principles that guide journalists in deciding whether a story serves the public interest, including issues of privacy, accountability, and transparency.
• Public interest test: A set of criteria used by journalists to determine if a news story should be reported, based on its potential to correct wrongs, enhance public understanding, or promote accountability.

Required materials

• News articles or excerpts for analysis
• Case study materials
• Whiteboard and markers
• Paper and pens for student notes
• Copies of the public interest test criteria
• Access to computers or tablets (optional, for research)

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

Related article

Journalism and the public interest

The post Lesson: The Public Interest first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at a situation where a journalist is faced with breaking the law in order to gather essential information for informing the public debate.

You are a radio reporter in a maritime city where shipbuilding is a major source of employment and wealth.

The local shipyard has announced 800 job losses on top of 800 announced a few months earlier.

In an effort to save their jobs, 37 workers decide to occupy a gas accommodation platform and a frigate, which are moored in the river adjacent to the shipyard.

Their protest has been going on for almost 14 weeks. Police and pickets surround the gates of the yard and the ramps leading to the occupied vessels.

For more than three months local media has received news releases and statements from the shipyard management, politicians, and from the union representing the occupying workers – but nobody has heard directly from the workers taking the action.

The only contact with them is via handwritten notes which are smuggled off one of the vessels, the gas accommodation platform, by messengers who, under the cover of darkness, dodge the police lines and use ropes to swing over barbed fencing and across the water between the accommodation platform and the shore, and then scramble aboard with the help of the occupying workers.

One morning, speaking live on your radio station, the union representative claims that management has turned off the water supply in an effort to end the occupation.

The representative says conditions on the occupied accommodation platform are bad and that some of the occupying workers are unwell. Their families express concern on your radio station’s morning phone-in. Many are distressed.

You have been reporting events since the start, and one obvious angle not yet covered is what life is like on the occupied platform. You have heard second-hand, but feel it’s important that you see for yourself the living conditions of the striking workers so that you can report the situation accurately.

Your news editor agrees, and it’s decided that you should try to board and interview the men. You know you will be trespassing, and could face legal action, but you go ahead anyway.

You meet union representatives on the quay next to the rig at 2am and, with the help of a rope thrown down by the occupying workers, scramble aboard. You are carrying a small transmitter called a ‘Cubi’ (these are the days before mobile phones were common). You also carry a tape recorder.

For the next few hours you talk to the occupying workers and record interviews. At 11:30am you broadcast live in the mid-morning news and current affairs programme including interviews you had recorded earlier.

After broadcasting your report, your radio station receives a phone call from the shipyard’s management threatening legal action unless you leave the platform immediately. The following day a letter from their lawyers warns against any further attempt to gain access to the vessel and interview the occupying workers.

Questions

• Is it ever right to defy the law in order to gain access to information?
• Should the radio station apologise to the shipyard management for the trespass?
• Should the radio station continue to use the material gathered during the trespass?
• Or should the radio station management instruct reporters to leave the story alone for fear of the shipyard taking legal action?
• Does the editorial motivation to get the whole story replace your duty of care to those whose words you broadcast?
• Is trespassing in order to talk to those occupying the vessel in the public interest?

Suggested responses

As journalists we will frequently face obstacles when news-gathering.

Public relations and communications officers will always be happy to feed you the side of the story that suits their needs. This is their job.

However, it is not always that easy to explore, understand, and articulate those elements of the story that are hidden behind legal barriers.

And, without all the facts, it’s difficult to relay a complete version of events to your audience.

Journalists need to be able to paint the fullest picture possible of what is really happening, without putting themselves, or those they are interviewing, in harm’s way.

In this particular case the decision to trespass in order to talk to the occupying workers face-to-face, and to see first-hand the conditions they were living under, was taken on editorial grounds after careful consideration by senior editorial staff.

Together, they decided the risk of arrest for trespass was worth taking in return for hearing a perspective on a major local news story that, for 14 weeks, had not been told.

One major consideration was whether scrambling on to the occupied rig to hear from the occupying workers was in the public interest.

So it’s important always to refer up to your line manager in all cases where you feel you need to take actions that could be legally dangerous.

Your line manager will need to decide whether the information you hope to gather is in the public interest, and your organisation’s legal team will assess the risk to you and to the company.

Summing up

This text describes a situation where a local shipyard’s significant job losses have led to a 14-week occupation of a gas accommodation platform and frigate by 37 workers. The workers are protesting the job losses, but their voices have been largely unheard, with communication limited to smuggled handwritten notes. A radio reporter, aware of the lack of direct information and concerned about the workers’ well-being (especially after allegations of the water supply being cut off), decides to board the occupied platform to interview them and report on their living conditions. This action, while potentially illegal trespass, is deemed necessary by the reporter and their editor to provide a complete and accurate account of the situation to the public. The text then raises ethical questions about defying the law for information, the station’s responsibility, and the balance between editorial drive and duty of care.

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists: the conflict between upholding the law and fulfilling the public’s right to know.

Key elements:

• Public Interest:
  • The shipyard’s job losses have a significant impact on the community, creating a strong public interest in understanding the situation.
  • The workers’ occupation, their conditions, and the alleged management actions all contribute to this public interest.
• Lack of direct information:
  • For months, the public has received information from limited sources (management, politicians, unions).
  • The perspectives of the occupying workforce – the heart of the story – remains unheard.
• Humanitarian concerns:
  • The workers’ alleged lack of water and deteriorating health raise serious humanitarian concerns.
  • These are important considerations which, unless checked cannot be confirmed.
• Journalistic duty:
  • The reporter feels a strong obligation to provide accurate and firsthand information about the workers’ living conditions.
  • This is a local story involving local residents being covered by a local reporter working for a local radio station. The journalist’s role is to inform that audience with accurate and reliable information.
• Legal risk:
  • The reporter and the radio station are aware that boarding the occupied platform constitutes trespassing and could lead to legal action.
  • It is a decision not taken lightly and is the result of the reporter having first ‘referred up’ to ensure that senior editors approved of the action.
• The power of first hand reporting:
  • The first hand reporting allows the public to make a more informed decision.

Analysis:

• The scenario highlights the limitations of relying solely on official sources or press releases. Sometimes, journalists must take risks to uncover the truth and provide a balanced perspective.
• The reporter’s decision to board the platform, while legally questionable, is driven by a desire to fulfil the core journalistic function of informing the public.
• The use of a hidden transmitter and tape recorder emphasises the need for journalists to be resourceful and innovative in gathering information.
• The reaction from the shipyard management shows the tension between the press and powerful organisations.
• The fact that the information was broadcast live, shows the urgency of the situation.
• The use of the radio phone in by the families, shows the power of the radio medium to give a voice to those who would not normally have one.

Issues:

• Ethical considerations:
  • This scenario forces us to consider the ethical boundaries of journalism.
  • Is it ever justifiable to break the law in the pursuit of truth?
  • How does one balance the public’s right to know with legal obligations?
• The importance of unbiased reporting:
  • The scenario underscores the importance of seeking out diverse perspectives and avoiding reliance on biased (or one-sided) sources.
  • Multiple perspectives are important when covering any news story.
• The role of journalism in holding power accountable:
  • By exposing the workers’ living conditions and the alleged management actions, the reporter is acting as a watchdog, holding those in power accountable.
  • This is a fundamental role of journalism.
• The power of radio:
  • In a time before wide spread mobile phone usage, radio was a powerful tool in getting information out to the public.

This scenario presents a complex ethical and legal dilemma faced by a journalist. The reporter’s decision to break the law is driven by a strong sense of public duty and a desire to provide accurate and firsthand information. The scenario highlights the importance of unbiased reporting, the ethical considerations involved in journalism, and the role of the media in holding power accountable. It also shows the power of radio as a medium for communicating information quickly and efficiently.

The post Trespass and journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The public interest means anything that is relevant to the lives and well-being of all of us, to society and our communities. It concerns the “common good”, meaning matters that affect our health, livelihoods, quality of life, security, and our governance.

The public interest does not mean what the public might find interesting. Broadly speaking, the difference here is between what is relevant to members of the public, as opposed to what might merely entertain, fascinate or titillate some of them.

News journalism is reporting matters of societal relevance. Not gossip and titbits about well-known figures, or about personal events and circumstances of others that do not affect broader society, but which merely pander to voyeurism. A journalist with a brief to report news should therefore apply a public interest test before deciding whether to cover a story.

In most cases it is clear what is and what is not in the public interest. But in some cases, such as stories concerning the private lives and actions of public figures in positions of power, the distinction is not clear.

The public interest is in having a safe, healthy and functional society. In a democracy, journalism plays a central role in that. It gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process. If journalists are good at their job, they hold governments and other institutions to account.

All serious journalism, then, contains a public service ethic. To fulfil this public service role, journalists must build and retain the trust of their audiences by behaving in an ethical and professional manner.

A journalist must have compelling reasons to deviate from standard good practice: if it is the only way to bring an important subject to the public’s attention.

For example, journalists should be honest about who and what they are; they should always give their names, and say for which news organisation they work.
However, there are times when a journalist might have to go undercover and hide their true identity and the real reason for their actions. Such cases could include the investigation of crime or political wrongdoing.

This is an act of deception, which is generally to be avoided, but if it brings justice and an end to criminal activity, it may be justified in the wider public interest.

Journalists should not intrude into people’s private lives – but there might be a case for doing so if the person being investigated is a public figure whose private behaviour is at odds with what they advocate in public life, especially when their position can influence legislation.

In this case, media intrusion – normally an objectionable practice – could expose hypocrisy and dishonesty. However, such intrusion must be clearly shown and clearly seen to be in the wider public interest.

Things become more difficult when the story in question may actually involve a journalist breaking the law, or encouraging someone else to do so. Here you need to have a serious discussion with colleagues about the circumstances, the public interest benefit in covering the story, the risks involved and the likely consequences.

Some countries build “the public interest” into their legal systems. So if you want to publish a difficult or controversial item because it is “in the public interest”, you should check whether the legal framework gives you the protection you need in each and every case.

In some countries, those in power might actively oppose journalists revealing information which, although in the public interest, might threaten their control of society. In such cases the public interest test takes on another meaning. How those in power define the public interest might be more about control than freedom of information. Here, extra care is required.

Some public interest justifications

If the decision is taken to publish, it is likely to be because the story would do one of these things:

• Correct a significant wrong.
• Bring to light information affecting public well-being and safety.
• Improve the public’s understanding of, and participation in, the debate about an important issue relevant to our society.
• Lead to greater accountability and transparency in public life.

None of this is easy. Journalists grapple with these issues every day. Many factors at play have not even been considered here, but if you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism.

Questions

1. What is the definition of “public interest”?
2. What is the difference between “public interest” and what the public might find interesting?
3. What role does journalism play in a democracy?
4. Why is it important for journalists to maintain ethical and professional behaviour?
5. Under what circumstances might a journalist justify going undercover?
6. What are some potential consequences of media intrusion into a public figure’s private life?
7. How should journalists handle situations where covering a story might involve breaking the law?
8. What are some reasons a story might be published in the public interest?
9. How might the definition of “public interest” differ in countries with varying legal systems?
10. What challenges do journalists face when applying the public interest test?

Answers

1. Public interest refers to anything relevant to the lives and well-being of society and communities, concerning the common good, such as health, livelihoods, quality of life, security, and governance.
2. “Public interest” is relevant to the public’s well-being, while what the public might find interesting could merely entertain or fascinate without societal relevance.
3. Journalism provides information necessary for democratic participation and holds governments and institutions accountable.
4. Ethical and professional behaviour helps journalists build and retain the trust of their audiences, fulfilling their public service role.
5. A journalist might justify going undercover if it is the only way to bring an important subject to the public’s attention, such as investigating crime or political wrongdoing.
6. Media intrusion could expose hypocrisy and dishonesty if a public figure’s private behaviour contradicts their public advocacy, but it must be justified in the wider public interest.
7. Journalists should discuss with colleagues the circumstances, public interest benefits, risks, and consequences before covering a story that might involve breaking the law.
8. A story might be published to correct a significant wrong, bring to light information affecting public well-being, improve public understanding and participation, or lead to greater accountability and transparency.
9. In some countries, the legal system incorporates “public interest,” providing protection for publishing controversial items, while in others, those in power might oppose such revelations.
10. Journalists face challenges such as determining the public interest benefit, legal implications, and ethical considerations when applying the public interest test.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: Journalism and the public interest which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

Related training module

Public interest – scenario

The post Journalism and the public interest first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at whether the actions of a family member are relevant to the conduct of a senior politician.

You are a political news editor working for a large public-service broadcaster. Parliament is debating proposed legislation that would relax laws on recreational drugs and decriminalise possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use.

This debate is being covered in depth by the media.

A government minister is known for taking a tough stance on such issues. Your reporting team has been covering proceedings and has interviewed him several times.

A story breaks on the news wires claiming that the minister’s adult son has been questioned by police following a drugs raid.

The son is a 24-year-old teacher, working in a school for pupils with special needs. He no longer lives with his parents. He hasn’t featured in the news before.

The same news wires are received by all the national newspapers and broadcasters.

You suspect that some newspapers will go big on the story, and that it will go viral on social media.

How should you respond?

Should you:

• Assign a reporter to check the details of the wires story with police.
• Cover the story as set out in the wires report.
• Continue to cover the debate in parliament, but ignore the information about the son because he is not a public figure.
• Contact the government minister for a comment.
• Contact the son for his version of events.
• Contact the school where he works.
• Contact campaigners on both sides of the drugs laws argument.

The public interest test

This is one of those stories that is likely to generate great excitement in some news outlets.

They will probably draw comparisons between the son’s behaviour and the minister’s stance on drugs.

Once the story is out, radio and TV chat-show hosts will probably discuss the current legislation going through parliament, mention that the minister’s son has been questioned, and conduct interviews in the street along with phone-ins to try to gauge public opinion.

But is there public interest justification for doing the story in the next news bulletin?

The son is not a public figure. He is a private individual. He hasn’t made any public comments linking him to the current drug debate.

The fact that he has been questioned by police about alleged recreational drug use is probably interesting to the public, but does that mean that it’s in the public interest for you to investigate further?

Would you assign a reporter to dig deeper every time a 24-year-old is questioned by police about drugs?

Or does the fact that this is the minister’s son make a difference?

Conclusion

This story is of interest only because of the relationship between the arrested son and his father, the minister currently discussing legislation regarding drugs.

But it has no public interest purpose. See our module ‘Journalism and the public interest’ – link at the bottom of this scenario.

As a political news editor you would probably want to assign a reporter to talk to the police to find out whether what was contained in the news wires was accurate, but that would be for background research purposes only.

And such background material will help you explain your decision to your line manager, who will no doubt ask you about the story when it breaks on other outlets.

While you might apply the public interest test to your journalism, others might not apply it to theirs.

In such cases, once the story is in the public domain, it could develop, with new angles emerging that change the story, along with people adding their comments and opinions.

You could then come under increasing pressure to cover the story, not just because everyone else is, but because it has moved on from the original facts of the son being questioned.

So the story should be monitored in other media, but picked up with respect to the son only if a public interest angle emerges contingent on that relationship.

In such cases you will need to refer up and talk to senior editorial colleagues.

This text presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists: balancing the public’s right to know with an individual’s right to privacy, particularly when that individual is related to a public figure. Here’s an analysis, added value, and summary of its importance:

Analysis:

• The core conflict:
  • The story hinges on the relationship between a private individual (the son) and a public figure (the minister).
  • The public interest is questioned: Does the son’s alleged involvement in drugs, solely because of his father’s position, warrant news coverage?
  • The text highlights the potential for sensationalism and “going viral,” driven by the connection to the minister’s stance on drug policy.
• Ethical considerations:
  • Public interest vs. private life: The text emphasises the importance of the “public interest test,” questioning whether mere public curiosity justifies invading a private individual’s life.
  • Fairness and proportionality: It raises the point that routinely reporting on every 24-year-old questioned by police would be disproportionate, suggesting the minister’s relationship is the sole driver of the story.
  • Potential for misinformation: The text acknowledges the rapid spread of information (and misinformation) through news wires and social media, highlighting the need for verification.
• Practical responses:
  • The text suggests a measured approach:
    • Verification of the news wire information with the police for background purposes.
    • Monitoring other media outlets for developments.
    • Escalating the issue to senior editorial staff.
    • Delaying reporting on the son until a true public interest angle presents itself.

Issues:

• Contextualisation:
  • The scenario is set against the backdrop of a significant political debate, adding layers of complexity. The timing is important.
  • The minister’s “tough stance” creates a potential narrative of hypocrisy, which can be a powerful driver of public interest.
• Media landscape:
  • The text acknowledges the competitive media environment, where outlets may prioritise sensationalism over ethical considerations.
  • It highlights the impact of social media in amplifying stories and shaping public perception.
• The importance of editorial judgement:
  • The text underscores the crucial role of editors in making informed decisions about what constitutes newsworthy information.
  • It shows that just because information exists, does not mean it has to be published.
• Legal considerations:
  • While not explicitly stated, the text implicitly touches on potential legal issues like defamation and privacy laws.

Summary:

This scenario highlights the critical importance of:

• Upholding ethical standards: Journalists must prioritise the public interest over sensationalism and respect individual privacy.
• Applying the public interest test: This test should be rigorously applied to determine whether a story warrants publication, especially when it involves private individuals.
• Verification and accuracy: In the age of rapid information dissemination, verifying facts is paramount to prevent the spread of misinformation.
• Responsible reporting: Journalists have a responsibility to consider the potential consequences of their reporting, particularly on individuals and their families.
• Editorial leadership: Senior editors must provide guidance and support to their teams in navigating complex ethical dilemmas.
• Monitoring and adapting: News cycles change rapidly, and news organisations must be ready to adapt to new information, and the actions of other news organisations.

In essence, this scenario serves as a valuable case study for aspiring and practicing journalists, reminding them of the ethical responsibilities that come with the power to inform the public.

The post Public interest – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.