What does "In the public interest" mean?

[StringJunky]

What does it mean wrt to whether something needs to be reported. Is gossip "in the public interest"? Does it differ either side of the Atlantic? What are the parameters?

Edited March 5, 2019 by StringJunky

[Strange]

First, "in the public interest" is definitely not the same as "what the public is interested in" (despite the claims of some tabloid papers)!

The general meaning is that it is something that is useful or important for the public to know (eg. where a political party gets its funding, what tariffs will be imposed after Brexit, etc). I doubt there are hard and fast rules; I guess a court would apply the "reasonable man" test.

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

First, "in the public interest" is definitely not the same as "what the public is interested in" (despite the claims of some tabloid papers)!

The general meaning is that it is something that is useful or important for the public to know (eg. where a political party gets its funding, what tariffs will be imposed after Brexit, etc). I doubt there are hard and fast rules; I guess a court would apply the "reasonable man" test.

A few things have sparked this question. The first time was when Cliff Richard's property was filmed by the BBC being raided by the police after a tip off by them. The BBC claimed it was in the public interest. They lost, and rightly so. I would have thought they would be highly expert at deciding what was in the public interest but apparently not. The latest one to prompt this question is how much the US Attorney General should reveal of the Meuller Report.  Your assessment echoes mine regarding what it means btw.

Edited March 5, 2019 by StringJunky

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The latest one to prompt this question is how much the US Attorney General should reveal of the Meuller Report

Unfortunately, there aren't objective answers to these subjective questions.

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unfortunately, there aren't objective answers to these subjective questions.

We can try.  We can start by pubilically omitting  that evidence covered by your secrets acts which may reveal the inner workings of the security services - it could still be used but only in camera to the oversight committee. Basically see what's left after necessary redactions. This current Reuters article might illuminate:

U.S. attorney general faces daunting decision on release of Russia report

My red lines would be: where that information harms any aspect of the lawful functioning of the US or its law-abiding employees (like the secret services), it  must be shielded from public view.

Edited March 5, 2019 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

First, "in the public interest" is definitely not the same as "what the public is interested in" (despite the claims of some tabloid papers)!

The general meaning is that it is something that is useful or important for the public to know (eg. where a political party gets its funding, what tariffs will be imposed after Brexit, etc). I doubt there are hard and fast rules; I guess a court would apply the "reasonable man" test.

Useful or important to the public. There is no implication in the term that they would be interested, or need or wish to know or not know. It could be in the best interest of the public that they don't get to know, for some security reason or such thing.

You can work in the best interest of someone in a coma. Same idea.

[Phi for All]

Public interest should refer to knowledge needed by citizens in a representative democracy to help them make informed decisions. 

It shouldn't be confused with "the public's best interests", which is usually misused by those who want to avoid a negative public reaction. Anyone claiming Mueller's report will be too divisive to be shared with the public is trying to define what's in everyone's "best interest". It seems similar to officials keeping a possible epidemic secret.

We shouldn't give up intelligence secrets, but we shouldn't try to shield a sitting POTUS from evidence either. Public interest says we need to be informed; public's best interest might say we can't embarrass the POTUS on the national stage like that.

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Public interest should refer to knowledge needed by citizens in a representative democracy to help them make informed decisions. 

It shouldn't be confused with "the public's best interests", which is usually misused by those who want to avoid a negative public reaction. Anyone claiming Mueller's report will be too divisive to be shared with the public is trying to define what's in everyone's "best interest". It seems similar to officials keeping a possible epidemic secret.

We shouldn't give up intelligence secrets, but we shouldn't try to shield a sitting POTUS from evidence either. Public interest says we need to be informed; public's best interest might say we can't embarrass the POTUS on the national stage like that.

The term already is in use as something other than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

[internetcynic]

"in the public interest" is a metaphor for "in the interests of the politcians or global elite."

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, internetcynic said:

"in the public interest" is a metaphor for "in the interests of the politcians or global elite."

Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for those in power

[internetcynic]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for those in power

im 64, what ive learned in that time is all politcians are  lying two faced bastards who are thinking of their bank balances.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, internetcynic said:

im 64, what ive learned in that time is all politcians are  lying two faced bastards who are thinking of their bank balances.

This is venturing off-topic, but you suggest an equivalence where scale and magnitude differ very much. We all care about our bank balances to some extent (we need to at least have enough to eat, have a roof over our heads, and care for our family), but it would be wrong to suggest that there are no relevant differences between (for example) Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

[internetcynic]

 

the fact is the people most suitably qualified to survive as  politicians are the least suitable  to be given public trust and the key to the public bank account.

 

Trump is different., he isnt a career politcian, hes a businessman with a transferable skill set.

Edited April 10, 2019 by internetcynic

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, internetcynic said:

Trump is different., he isnt a career politcian, hes a businessman with a transferable skill set.

Bankrupting every person and institution he touches?

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, internetcynic said:

Trump is different., he isnt a career politcian, hes a businessman with a transferable skill set.

This makes it even worse. In terms of the public interest, we're all very poorly served by someone most interested in private gain. Business skills don't transfer at all, except the spin and marketing necessary to make the common folk believe business skills transfer to politics.

If politicians are often wolves in sheep's clothing, businessmen skip wearing the wool and convince you their private profit is in the public interest.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, internetcynic said:

im 64, what ive learned in that time is all politcians are  lying two faced bastards who are thinking of their bank balances.

That's interesting. One is prompted to ask where do politicians come from?