I RECENTLY read an extremely insightful and provocative book, The Media We Deserve, about the role of the Australian media, written by highly respected, independent journalist David Salter. While reading the book, it was impossible not to reflect on the nature of the media's involvement in the AFL industry.

We are fortunate that the media makes such an overwhelmingly positive contribution to our game. However, a handful of situations over the past couple of years has demonstrated the willingness of some elements of the media to invade what I would describe as the private, personal space of AFL players. This concerns me.

By any reasonable measure, the media's stake in the AFL is massive. At 760 there are more AFL accredited journalists than players. Journalists covering AFL football outnumber members of the Canberra press gallery by 4-1. On average, each round, 970,000 people listen to the footy on the radio and 4.2 million Australians watch footy on the TV. It has been suggested that the next AFL television broadcasting rights deal could be worth well in excess of $1 billion over five years.

The media cultivate and feed the public's ravenous appetite for the AFL. Tens of thousands of column centimetres and hours on air are devoted to promoting our game: discussing and analysing the teams, the great players, the great contests. As we are currently witnessing, media coverage during the finals series reaches fever pitch, which again serves to confirm that we are fortunate to have such high-quality media interest in our game.

The extent to which the media promotes our game, our clubs and our players is without precedent in this country; as is the extent to which the game and the deeds of teams and players are scrutinised. As public institutions in their own right, the public invests much faith and confidence in the AFL, the clubs and the players. It's only right that media ask the tough questions for and on behalf of the public as to the management and performance of these institutions.

However, over the past few years, I have become increasingly concerned at the willingness of some elements of the media to invade what I would describe as the inner, private, personal lives of some AFL players.

When our players arrive into the AFL we tell them the landscape changes; that on and off-field expectations are going to be raised; that they will get whacked hard and often when they fail to meet those expectations; and to get used to it because it is part of the bargain of being an AFL player. But in recent years, we have witnessed examples of media scrutiny that could never, and should never, be considered to be part of the bargain.

As an enthusiastic consumer of media and someone who was lucky enough to briefly work in the media, I understand why the public might be interested, why they might find the subject matter titillating, why they might have a morbid curiosity about the private aspects of some players' lives, but should this override an AFL player's — or for that matter, any individual's — right to privacy?

What is of greater concern is the media's tendency to justify these intrusions as being in the public interest or linked to the public's right to know; that in all cases there was a compelling public need to over-ride the right to privacy. I dispute this and while the public may be interested in the subject matter, there is a Dustin Fletcher torpedo punt's difference between subject matter that the public might be interested in, as opposed to subject matter that is in the public interest.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how the public interest was served by sections of the media in the reporting of these stories. It's time that some sections of the media were a little more honest and acknowledged that rather than a public interest, the chase for the sensationalist headline is more often motivated by a personal, commercial interest.

In The Media We Deserve, Salter digs up a piece of advice proffered by Rupert Murdoch way back in 1961, but which is no less relevant today: "Unless we return to the principles of public service, we will lose our claim to be the fourth estate. What right have we to speak in the public interest when, too often, we are motivated by personal gain."If AFL players continue to be subjected to attacks on their privacy when there is no justifiable public interest, I'm concerned about the relationship between the AFL "industry" at large and some sections of the media, and I'm even more concerned following the recent observations of senior Age journalist Martin Flanagan who commented that: " … a section of the media is in danger of behaving towards footballers like the tabloid press in Britain behaves towards the royal family and we all know the appalling places that has led".

In the UK, some lawmakers have recommended the acknowledgement of a right to privacy which has already been enshrined in the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice. You would have to assume that the impetus for these changes began with media invasions of the royal family and were heightened by the tragic death of Princess Diana.

In Australia, we don't have a legal right to privacy. However, you would have to think that the more some elements of the media invade the personal, private space of AFL players and other high-profile citizens, and fail to uphold the principles of "public service" that Murdoch referred to, perhaps the more urgent the need for courts and, ultimately, governments to intervene in order to protect privacy not simply as a value shared by all Australians but as a fundamental right.

Brendon Gale is chief executive of the AFL Players Association.