Today Tonight in Tasmania has been given a rap over the knuckles for breaching the privacy of a woman and child in a story about paternity testing.

The show, which thrives on hidden camera yarns and exposing supposed villains, has promised to lift its standards and pledged to warn staff about the dangers of invading people’s privacy.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority ruled that an item broadcast in August 2006 breached the privacy of a mother and child because Today Tonight “used material relating to a person’s private or personal affairs without an identifiable public interest reason for the material to be broadcast.”

The program alleged the Child Support Agency had mismanaged a paternity test and that consequently a man, identified by ACMA as Mr R, had wrongly been forced to pay support for a child who wasn’t his.

Now, without wanting to defend Today Tonight, the ruling seems strange because the efficacy of paternity testing is actually an issue of great public concern.

But, in fact the ruling is a little more subtle than meets the eye. ACMA has not said that talking about paternity matters and child support is not in the public interest. On the contrary it accepts that it is definitely a matter of public concern, especially in the wake of last year’s landmark High Court case Magill v Magill which found that spouses don’t have grounds for taking action over deceit when it comes to questions about paternity.

So instead, ACMA ruled that Today Tonight didn’t need to breach the family’s privacy in order to discuss the issue.

Well that’s one reading of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. The relevant section, clause 4.3.5, says that broadcasters “must not… invade an individual’s privacy other than where there is an identifiable public interest reason for the material to be broadcast.”

A more liberal interpretation of that clause could be that when something is in the public interest broadcasters are allowed to breach people’s privacy.

But, as is often the case, it’s the worst offenders who end up testing the interpretation of regulations. A salacious outfit like Today Tonight is unlikely to win many favors from the regulators.

So how’s the pep talk going at Today Tonight I wonder? Have the folks been given their stern warning and advised not to identify and invade the privacy of the people they pillory? I’m looking forward to the results on air as reporters ask themselves whether they really do need to identify the person they’re exposing at the heart of another dodgy sham.

But be careful. Don’t do too much soul searching guys. After all a Today Tonight reporter who asks himself whether anything he does is in the public interest could find it a very depressing exercise.