| Abstract [eng] |
The definition of private life is a relatively new concept in the Lithuanian law. The laws of the country do not strictly define what the private life is. There are no rules in Lithuania which would clearly describe which aspects of private life of a public figure should be revealed and which should not be communicated to the public. There is a huge number of privacy theories which prove how difficult it is to define privacy. Some theorists (L. Brandeis, W. Brennan) relate privacy to the human rights; others (R. Gavison, A.F. Westin) link it to the isolation; some of them (C. Fried, A. Miller) see privacy in relation with control. There is no unanimous classification of privacy theories. The empirical aim of the research is to analyse the aspects of politicians’ privacy described in Lithuanian daily newspapers (Lietuvos Rytas and Respublika). Two national daily newspapers, namely Lietuvos Rytas and Respublika, have been chosen for the analysis of the research topic. The periods of elections to Lithuanian Seimas in 2004 and 2008 have been chosen for this research. Three months before the elections and three months after the elections during the selected years have been chosen as the period for the research. The main objective was to observe whether the number and nature of the articles describing the private life of politicians differ and if the alternation is noticed how does it change. The chosen periods for the research are from 1 July, 2004 until 31 December, 2004 and from 1 July, 2008 until 31 December, 2008. During these periods, the articles which described the private life of politicians or their family members, i.e. the articles which do not relate to the direct duties of the politicians, from the above mentioned daily newspapers were analysed. The results of the research. The research conducted has revealed that there are cases when news media representatives who present the information about the private life of politicians or their family members are driven by their curiosity rather than rightful public interest and in this way infringe the politicians’ rights for private life. The research has shown that the politicians and their family members do not avoid talking about and publicising their most private experiences. It should be noted that the positive articles about politicians’ private lives could be used as a tool to form a particular image of politicians. |
