Reality-Based Television Versus the Civil Right to Privacy: A Battle of Access

Abstract

the general public has come under closer scrutiny from those who seek to obtain information about them, whether they like it or not, from technologies such as hidden cameras, Internet spyware, miniature recording devices, and super-telescopic photography lenses (e.g., Elder, Johnson, and Rishwain). Society's interest in voyeurism or curiosity (Baruh 202) appears to fuel a growing of television programming called reality TV. Its popularity has influenced traditional television journalistic newsgathering practices and along the way has created challenges regarding the public's right to privacy.In Wilson v. Layne and Berger v. Hanlon, the US Supreme Court's decisions affected newsgathering techniques that can be used by journalists while accompanying law enforcement officials during the execution of a search warrant. Shulman v. Group W Productions further altered the media's process of gathering information by clarifying access to emergency situations and access to patients where guarded personal information is exchanged between the victim and an emergency respondent.These decisions were meant to provide outlets with clear boundaries regarding the public's right to know versus the public's right to privacy or the First Amendment versus the Fourth (Esch; Gossett; C. Calvert). The outlets in question were print and broadcast news organizations in the Wilson and Berger decisions. The courts did not specify whether alternative programming provided by independent television production companies was included under the media ridealong decision.With the rise of reality-type information gathering, the question remains of whether or not these lines of privacy have been crossed (Mast). The theoretical and context of this research is to explore implications of decisions regarding privacy rights and apply them to justice (Erikson) and accident and emergency format (Kilborn; Bondebjerg) reality-type television programming.TheoreticalOrbe suggests using diverse methodological and theoretical approaches to critical scholarship (350). Cross-disciplinary research methods are employed during this article's exploratory study, including genre criticism (Butler 432) examining production techniques, critical analysis of reality television (Lunt; Hight), and critical or empirical studies (Trubek 585), where concepts are applied to sociological inquiry.Previous critical (CLS) are associated with application of social science and research on the behavior of actors (Trubek 600). Trubek postulates that a relationship exists between legal beliefs and practice (604) and social order and action. Critical empiricism (Coombe 71) in law is applicable in film theory, the ideological efficacy (118) of television. Causal research in CLS, proposes Tushnet, is an interminable critique (516) on social values. Miller posits the field of television borrows from CLS (3). CLS allows an opening in sociological research, with foundations providing a basis for critical application.This article examines the rise of the tabloid journalism type of reality television (Cavender and Fishman; B. Calvert et al.; Turner) and applies Prosser's torts on privacy to the production of nonfiction documentary-style programs, otherwise noted as reality-type television. The article focuses on one state case, Shulman v. Group W, and two federal cases, Berger v. Hanlon and Wilson v. Layne, to the application of reality television programming.Reality Television DefinedThere are many definitions of reality-based television programming. Prosise and Johnson, expanding on Cavender and Fishman, indicate a belief that reality programming blurs the line between news and entertainment . . . fact and fiction (Prosise and Johnson 73), where the videotaped interactions are presented to the audience as real rather than fictionalized encounters (e. …