On Monday the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme “The Death of Kiss & Tell.”

It’s unsurprising that the BBC should slant its take on “Kiss & Tell” against the victims; it is embedded in the BBC ethos that anyone rich and powerful should be challenged, especially if they use the law to protect themselves from hungry journalists and greedy tabloids.

In a lightweight resumé of the issues (along with some pointless visuals of studio lighting techniques) and in line with the prevailing tabloid obsession with celebrity,  reporter Clive Coleman chose not to talk to any of those non-celebrities who have been also been damaged by unscrupulous, muckraking tabloid editors. The programme failed to acknowledge that such privacy laws as there are, are there to protect any member of the public – rich or poor – from unwarranted intrusion, and that less well-off victims are also beneficiaries of the much vilified Conditional Fee Arrangements (CFAs), which mean lawyers don’t charge if they lose, and take double if they win. It also failed to make the point that those laws don’t exist to protect the rights only of poor people, that the rich have as much right to privacy as anyone else, and because, in the very nature of modern tabloid journalism, they are always going to be targeted more regularly.

I have always fully concurred with the fundamental and freedom enhancing right of the media to report on matters of public interest, and the belief that that end excuses all methods of journalism, but Panorama dwelt only momentarily on that critical definition of public interest. I entirely accept there is no question that when a story has a direct bearing on an individual’s function in public office, or an abuse of privileges that might come with it (like the bonking MP in his office), or points up hypocrisy in actions that fly in the face of an individual’s public pronouncements, the press have a duty to report.

But there should be not a hint of doubt that these criteria have been met before a life-destroying story is unleashed by a national newspaper, never to be expunged from the public domain. Mark Oaten, the conscientious and well-respected MP for Winchester, having decided not to stand following the News of the World’s outing of his gay sex life has decided to bow out gracefully by conceding that the paper was acting in the public interest. I disagree.

If he were a marriage guidance counsellor, or a bishop preaching against adultery or homosexuality, they would have had an uncontestable case. But Oaten was not elected because he was not gay, and it’s questionable that he would have lost any votes if he had been unmarried or openly gay.

Is it in the public interest simply to be told what individuals do in the intimacy of their bedroom? Unless it is illegal or in direct contradiction of public moral positions they have adopted, I think not. But Panorama seems firmly to support the right of any woman who sleeps with a footballer (a premiership one, at least) who is married to someone else, to make a handsome windfall by selling the story to one of the ShagRags. But it doesn’t take much imgination to guess how Panorama front man, Jeremy Vine would feel if some casually (or not so casually) encountered female did the same to him.

Private Eye’s Ian Hislop was wheeled out to back up Paniorama’s positioon  – as a celebrity himself now, thanks to his regular, scathing, chubby presence on HIGNFY – and sneered at the right of anyone to expect their private life to remain so. God help him if he strays (if anyone will have him) and gets caught.

Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian – now the paper of choice for most opinion-formers of all persuasions – was more circumspect, as you might expect from the editor of a paper which, he told the Commons Culture Media Sport Committee last month , has never been sued for invasion of privacy, but nevertheless successfully (and more so than most) covers all major public interest stories.

The self-serving, imbalanced conclusions to which the Panorama producers attempted to steer their audience did not make edifying viewing.

Popularity: 1% [?]