The boundaries between the public’s right to know and the individual’s right to privacy are often blurred. However, the media’s responsibility to inform the public must be balanced with the right of individuals to protect their private lives. The disclosure of the real-life counterpart of a character from the Netflix show ‘Baby Reindeer’, created by Richard Gadd, has brought this delicate balance back into question.
The blending of realistic storytelling with creative freedom poses ethical dilemmas that are difficult to ignore, especially in true crime dramas. Audiences are often drawn to such stories and when the line between a character and a real person is blurred, it can lead to misjudgment and potential harassment by the public. Exposing the real-life counterpart of Martha, a character on the show, could be considered a serious violation of an individual’s right to privacy.
Journalistic ethics and the right to privacy
Journalistic ethics requires respect for the privacy of individuals and the public interest. In this context, disclosure of an individual’s identity is only acceptable if there is a public interest that exceeds the harm to the individual.
The disclosure of Fiona Harvey as the inspiration for the character of Martha has upset the balance between public interest and individual privacy. In addition to negatively affecting Harvey’s psychological and social well-being, this revelation has turned her into a source of “voyeuristic entertainment” by the media.
It is one thing to report on a case or conviction whose details are in the public domain; it is quite another to actively expose a woman’s identity for a story told through a constructed lens. This exposes Harvey to “judgement by the media,” which can have serious consequences for the recovery and safety of a woman with already fragile mental health.
Finding Harvey was extremely easy. Martha’s character was so similar to the real person that it only took a few sentences from the show to find her. Harvey was then frequently harassed by journalists and received numerous threats on social media. This came to a head when journalist Piers Morgan invited her for an interview.
Having watched both ‘Baby Reindeer’ and the interview, I think it is almost impossible for anyone watching this series not to speculate or take sides. There are two conflicting narratives. But as viewers, unaware of the full context and concrete evidence, we are ill-equipped to separate fiction from fact. Moreover, the cruel irony here is that the punitive pushing of the “stalker”, who seeks attention in unhealthy ways, into the spotlight, as shown in the show, creates a paradox in which the stalker herself is a victim of public shame, perpetuating the cycle of harm. In its relentless pursuit of news, the media has caused serious harm to Harvey by choosing to prioritise sensationalism over responsible journalism.
In a way, the show was a tool to process and share Gadd’s traumatic experience as a kind of catharsis. However, the media’s overreach and exposure of Gadd’s stalker, Harvey, could damage Gadd’s healing journey and drag him back into the story in a way he did not want, desire or plan.
Morgan, experienced in interviewing murderers in prison, grilled Harvey for almost an hour. While he never directly accused her of being a mentally disturbed stalker, he kept emphasising that this is how she was portrayed in the show that is watched by millions. He asked about her upbringing, qualifications, current boyfriend’s past and whether she would agree to be polygraphed. She denied many of the story’s claims, including that she was ever convicted or imprisoned for stalking Gadd.
It begs the question: if Harvey was not found guilty of stalking, will Netflix pay for this slander? No matter how true the rest of the story is, Netflix should pay for this libel. Given that they make more than $5 billion in annual profits, there must be a price for ethical carelessness.
In a tweet, Piers Morgan announced his program as follows: “Fiona Harvey wants to have her say and ‘set the record straight’. Is she a psychopathic stalker? Find out tomorrow on @PiersUncensored.” After Gadd himself told The Independent that the real person who inspired Martha was “mentally disturbed”, I would like to say that I find Piers’ interview “irresponsible” and “unethical”. The interview with Harvey is nothing short of exploitation of a person in a vulnerable situation.
Harvey continued: “Piers was saying to me, ‘Are you sure you haven’t sent this guy 41,000 emails and phoned him hundreds of times?’ For most of the interview, for about 10 minutes, he kept coming back to this. He tried very hard to trip me up and catch me off guard. I feel a little bit used, and even if I sent some emails, it doesn’t mean I’m guilty of the rest of it. Like I said, to declare something a true story, it has to be almost 100% true.” Harvey also revealed that Morgan asked him if he liked Gadd, to which he replied, “You’ve got to be kidding.”
At the same time, Gadd too has been pressured to reveal, line by line, which parts of the series are true. He asked viewers not to try to find out who these people were, with the inevitable result, of course, that they didn’t listen to him. This chaotic situation weakened the message and creativity of the show. Gadd was also accused of lying. If he wanted to press charges and reveal the true identities, wouldn’t Gadd have done so already?
On the other hand, the identity of the TV producer who sexually harassed Gadd’s character is unknown. There is some speculation because of which some people were subjected to online abuse. Gadd was forced to say that the person being subjected to scrutiny was not his abuser, but the internet remains in a frenzy of speculation to find out who it really is.
Lessons for the future
The controversy swirling around ‘Baby Reindeer’ highlights critiques about consent, privacy and moral responsibilities of filmmakers dealing with real-life-inspired narratives. Not only has the interview increased excitement for the series, but it has also exposed the violations of personal rights that individuals like Harvey may be subjected to due to the dramatisation of their alleged experiences.
The series questions the responsibility of creators and platforms to balance storytelling with ethical considerations. This case is a potential catalyst for a cautionary tale about how true crime stories will be approached in the future. It is part of human nature to want to find out who the real people behind a character are. In the age of social media, if people want to know who the real person is, they can usually figure it out very easily.
Drama producers know this better than anyone. Social media is evolving rapidly and Netflix has to come up with certain strategies to hide the identities of side characters and protect people like Harvey from internet sleuths and other people accused of crimes they didn’t commit. Many TV companies have part-time commissioning managers who deal with and anticipate issues such as hiding the true identities of characters. For example, in ‘I Can Destroy You’, a story detailing someone’s sexual assault, the BBC made sure that the characteristics of the side characters were very different from the real people they were based on.
Netflix does not seem to have the same policies. In the past, there have been problems with other series based on true stories. In 2022, Vanity Fair editor Rachel DeLoache Williams sued Netflix for defaming her in ‘Inventing Anna’.
While characters are often caricatured to make the story more interesting, there should be limits. The real emotions of a victim shared on screen have the power to resonate more with other real-life victims than the emotions of a fictionalised character. Gadd’s character portrays the ‘grey areas’ of abuse very well, especially as he shares how he repeatedly returned to his abuser. Victims of sexual abuse will often blame themselves internally, and that can be damaging to both them and the society at large. After all, it can be a powerful factor in preventing someone from talking about their abuse.
Large media platforms like Netflix have a responsibility to protect the confidentiality of their content. Harvey’s exposure means that Netflix has not fulfilled this responsibility. It should also be noted that Netflix is selling this series as a true story and not one based on a true story.
This exposé constitutes a serious breach of journalistic ethics and media responsibility. Netflix and other media platforms must balance storytelling with ethical considerations and respect the rights of individuals. This incident demonstrates, once again, that media outlets and content platforms need to be more careful in the future.
The media has a duty to protect the vulnerable as much as to give a voice to the voiceless. But there are two vulnerable people: one became rich and famous, the other publicly scorned and ridiculed.
Netflix should have been more careful in the promotion and marketing of its content and considered the emotional ties of its audience. It needs to take stricter security measures to prevent such disclosures.
The media plays a crucial role in informing the public, but the power it wields comes with responsibility. Respecting the balance between the public interest and individual privacy is a fundamental responsibility of the media. Harvey’s exposure clearly demonstrates the consequences of not respecting this balance. It underlines the need for media organisations to be more sensitive in protecting and not harming vulnerable individuals.
Yasemin Giritli İnceoğlu is a Visiting Professor of Media Studies at the LSE Media and Communication Department.
