|
Com 310: The Media and Privacy: A Delicate Ethical Balance |
Copyright, 2002
Dr. Janet McMullen
Updated: April 01, 2002
Reading Assignment: Chapter 5
In the last decade, our society has become more and more concerned with threats to our privacy. We are concerned about the Internet, credit reports, medical records. We assume that if someone is getting information about us, they have to have our permission? Not always so on the Internet, and new laws are addressing some of those this issues. But did you know that new monitoring devices mounted on billboards are used in radio ratings They can tell what radio station you're listening to and make you a survey participant whether you want to be or not. Should media practitioners be concerned about the ethics of that kind of data collection?
A few years ago, we might have asked the question: Is the status of the Clinton marriage significant to the American Public? [Discuss "Why?" "Why not?"]
You may have seen the movie, Dave. It's all about private character and public life. In the movie, the President was a jerk who cheated on his wife; his marriage was a sham. His ethical behavior in other areas was far from stellar as well. The "look-a-like" who replaces him is an ordinary, but decent guy, and he makes a completely different type of president. [Extra credit option: Watch Dave and discuss it from a "privacy" or "truth" or "integrity" position. 5pts]
At what point does the private life of a public figure or political leader become significant to people who elect him/her? Let's look at some examples:
Would it have made a difference to the American public had they known that the man leading them to the brink of war during the Cuban Missile Crisis was abusing drugs?
How does a journalist decide what's important, what's not? (What is the difference between "lap dog journalism" and "watch dog journalism?"
Why do we value privacy?
The issue of privacy spells trouble for journalists:
Four distinct torts have developed: (a TORT is a civil wrong on injury)
1. INTRUSION: violation of one's physical solitude
2. PUBLICITY OF EMBARRASSING FACTS: publicizing facts which would
3. APPROPRIATION: use of a person's picture, name or likeness without permission (get signed release forms)
A recent case illustrates some of the issues associated with privacy. Dateline did a piece on the trucking industry and told the truckers they would be presented in a favorable light, but did just the opposite. The truckers claimed reporters took quotes out of context and betrayed a confidence. As a result, the truckers were embarrassed, vilified by fellow truckers and even received death threats. The appeals court over turned the jury verdict in the trucker's favor, saying the Dateline story was in pursuit of issues of safety. The truckers were concerned that the appeals court never saw the story or any of the videotape. Be sure you read the account at the AJR site.
Olmstead, K. J., "Trucking Expose' : Vindication for 'Dateline NBC'" AJR 6/2000. at http://ajr.org/ajrolmjun00.html
Or consider the situation in which O.J. found himself. An author ingratiates himself with O.J.'s defense team in order to gain inside information to write a book about the event. Then came the movie... O. J. Simpson objected to the recent docudrama on CBS, "American Tragedy" which provided a behind the scenes look at the trial. He claimed false light and disclosure of embarrassing facts. The movie was based on the book by the same name written by Normal Schiller who worked with O.J.'s lawyers. Schiller worked with Simpson on his story, I Want To Tell You. He and Simpson made plans to write another book -- after the trial. Schiller earned Simpson's trust and that of his lawyers. Simpson agreed to the book on the condition that he could approve the manuscript, but it didn't work out that way. As a result, Simpson claims that his lawyer-client confidentiality has been compromised. One of his lawyers actually was punished by the bar association for revealing privileged information which appeared in the book. O.J. was unable to prevent the airing of the movie, however. How private could the story have been considering all the publicity surrounding the case? Even if what was done was unethical, he stood very little chance of winning his suit.
In Com Law we study a case in which a woman held hostage by her estranged husband was forced to flee her home nude, except for a dishtowel held across the front f her body. That picture appeared on the front page of her hometown newspaper. Was her privacy invaded? She thought so. The court did not. A new law in France bans photos that a court decides are embarrassing or harmful to the subjects of the picture. The "Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims" law prohibits pictures that damage of the subject's dignity. The group that promoted the film contends that "The right to information must not provoke a second 'victimization.'" Conniff, K. "France Says 'Non!' to Certain Photos" Brill's Content. 9/2000. http://www.brillscontent.com/online/photolaw.html (no longer available)
Other laws which may apply to the journalist:
The NEED FOR ETHICS in Privacy: Not everything that is legal is moral, and not everything that is moral may be legal. Media practitioners must be very careful to consider both the moral and legal aspects of all privacy situations.
1. No protection by law for public persons : this means that public persons are very vulnerable to abuses of privacy. Do President Bush's daughters deserve less respect than any other college student? Another related issue has to do with how we get people to serve the public at all. If privacy and other rights afforded to other citizens are no longer considered for public officials, we may not find ourselves with the best qualified individuals for the job:
2. Newsworthiness:
3. General Rule is that, anything that takes place in public view can be reported. Things which happen in public are by definition NOT PRIVATE.
Discuss:
[My experience with Will Geer example in CBS commissary.]
What's the difference between secrecy and privacy:
secrecy: intentionally blocking information to prevent others from learning, using or revealing it. [Patterson, p. 113] The information is kept from ANY view.
privacy: individual has control over what information is revealed to the public/or to whom in the public. The information may be revealed to some but not all.
May refer to Patterson fig. 5.1 The concept of circle of intimacy [p.114]
Patterson says the need to know is not enough:
Ethicists need to recognize the difference between
THE RIGHT TO KNOW
THE NEED TO KNOW
WANT TO KNOW
Each of these is distinctly different. They are NOT interchangeable.
Right to know: legal; based on idea that governments operate more effectively in open environment
Need to Know:
Need to know is the most compelling argument of the three: WHY?
[Discuss]
Journalists must show the story in such a way that its importance is evident to the citizenry.
Want to know: callousness in all of us, morbid curiosity, voyeurism, gossip...very weak; but that's the basis of most tabloid television.
Illness and disease:
AIDS:
But what if the person is a public figure?
In your text, Day discusses the case of a fire at a homosexual club in which a number of individuals were killed and several others injured. The STAR decided to fully identify the men who had died because of the circumstances of their deaths. The POST decided not to identify them because of potential trauma to their families
How one makes a decision of this kind may be based more on how one perceives homosexuality than journalistic issues:
Day quotes Chaires Seib, in an editorial criticizing the Post's decision....
"In effect, Post editors said that homosexuality is so shameful that extraordinary steps had to be taken to protect the families of the victims. We will report the tragedy fully, they said, and tell you what we know about the men who died. But we won't tell you who they were.
"Question: Does this have the effect of underscoring the stigma of homosexuality, of showing it back into the closet at a time when efforts are being made to bring it out and address it as a social fact?"
Can labeling someone gay or lesbian be harmful in today's society?
In 1992, a reporter from USA TODAY contacted pro tennis player Arthur Asche and asked if he had AIDS. Asche would not confirm or deny the story, but he did have the disease and had told some family and friends. The paper told him they would not go with the story without on-the-record sources, but that they were pursuing the story. The next day, Asche held a press conference and announced to the public that he did have AIDS which was contracted during a blood transfusion given him during heart surgery. He was angry that he had been forced to make the announcement, particularly because he and his wife were concerned about the effect the disclosure would have on their young daughter. Remember, this was the early 1990s, and the public was still very afraid of any contact with the disease or those who might have it. Asche believed his privacy had been invaded.
What do you think?
SEX CRIMES:
Crime is usually of public interest. Should names be reported? Most ethicists say generally not. If names are part of public record, news media can publish them under the law. But SHOULD they? How often do YOU go down to the court house and look at names of victims?
What are the arguments FOR publication of those names?
What are the arguments AGAINST publication?
OTHER AREAS
Juvenile offenders: Historically those names have not been published. Is this still a valid issue today? Juvenile criminals KNOW the difference between right and wrong, and many are being tried as adults. What do YOU think is appropriate and why? Be sure you know what you can do legally. The laws vary from state to state, so you must be careful. Generally the rule is that if you obtain the name legally you can use it. If it appears anywhere in public or in a public file, it's fair game.
Suicides: These reports are generally not published unless it was done in a public place, or by a public person. There has been some indication that suicide rates increase when stories about suicide are published or broadcast.
Another problem can occur when you publish
something that is embarrassing or harmful to an individual. What if that person
threatens suicide? Such incidences have happened. What is the
reporter's responsibility to tell the truth? What responsibility do you
have to the human life at stake?
VIOLENT CRIMES:
The Poynter Institute has an excellent site addressing the issue of covering violence. Check it out thoroughly. Consider all of the articles assigned reading:
SECRET CAMERAS AND RECORDERS:
HOW reporters gather information is the key here.
Under federal law, conversations may be recorded with the consent of one participant
Some state laws vary on this, so you need to check
"rules about privacy require that both the reporter and the source are in their public roles as journalist and source, not in their private roles as human beings...Rules about confidentiality establish what information is intended for public consumption and what is not. And rules about attribution establish the extent to which the source will be publicly known..." ( p. 110)
According to this position, the secret taping is not a problem, because these other rules will govern the tapes and their use.
The Radio Television News Director's Association has sever excellent resources on this matter. Be sure to read these articles. They are not long, but they are very valuable.
"When journalists misuse hidden cameras, they undermine what legitimacy the tool has and invite public anger and backlash."
Steele, B. "High Standards for Hidden Cameras." at RTNDA.org at http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/steele_2.html
Olson, Kathleen. "Statutes and Court Cases." RTNDA.org. http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/olson.html
Federal Law about hidden cameras: at http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/federal.html
Alabama law about hidden cameras and eavesdropping at http://www.rtdna.org/resources/hiddencamera/alabama.html
See also: Baker, Russ. "Damning Undercover Tactics as 'Fraud'. Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1997. http://www.cjr.org/year/97/2/greensboro.asp
What about over hearing conversations on cell phones?
Kirby, K. "Freedom of Information: Wiretapped Conversations" RTNDA.org. http://www.rtnda.org/foi/wtc.shtml
Kirby, K. "Lines and Levels of Privacy" Communicator, 10/99 http://www.rtnda.org/foi/lalop/shtml (not available)
"What you say is protected. How you get the information is not." Be sure to read this article, if you can find it. Check the RTNDA search engine at rtdna.org, but if you can't find it, don't worry about. They may have pulled it off. I don't have time now to find that out.
AMBUSH INTERVIEWS: An ambush or "gotcha" interview involves catching someone on the street or in a public place (a la 60 Minutes.....)
ACCIDENTS AND PERSONAL TRAGEDIES:
We've discussed these in class before....Mike in the mouth of the grieving mother... not necessary to exploit for ratings.
1. RESPECT for persons
2. SOCIAL UTILITY:
The current efforts of media outlets to procure Dale Earnhardt's autopsy-photos is illustrative of this point. The Florida Sentinel wanted access to the photos, which under Florida law, were public records. The paper did not want to publish the photos, only to have an outside expert examine them as research for a story the paper is doing on racing safety. The family and racing fans were incensed at the request and did not want the pictures released. They were encouraged to settle the dispute a judge would decide. While all of this was transpiring, the Florida legislature won unanimous approval for a bill which would require a judge to approve the release of any autopsy picture. That law has been challenged in court and the case will be going to trial in the next few weeks. It is expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Watch what happens on this one. You can find more information about this case at the Freedom Forum site at freedomforum.org Search for Earnhardt to get the latest info.
3. JUSTICE:
One of the most notable privacy cases in recent years involved Richard Jewell, who was implicated by the FBI and media in the Olympic Park bombing, but was never charged. Be sure you understand the significance of that case and what the outcomes have been.
See: "Journalists and Jewell: Teaching Old Watchdogs New Tricks" from the Poynter Center.
See also: Read all of the features contained in "Curiosity vs. Privacy" (Feature stories) Brill's Content, October, 1999. Http://www.brillscontent.com/features/curiosity_1099.html These deal with JFK jr.'s death and the coverage of Dianna, as well as recent public polls about the role and conduct of journalists. This one is no longer available on line, but you can read it in the library if you want. We have the issue.While the Food Lion case against ABC had to do with fraud, it was really about under cover techniques and investigative reporting. Read the following discussion in Columbia Journalism Review and you'll get a sense of the issues at stake... "The Truth about Lying"
In the October, 1998 issue of the RTNDA journal, The Communicator, Kathleen Kirby wrote an excellent summarizing article about how journalists should approach this issue: It was formerly available at the RTNDA site at www.rtnda/org;fooi/ipn.shtml , but the link no longer is active. Again, check the search engine to find it. In the article, she reminds journalists of key points:
Finally, be sure you look at the RTNDA Respecting
Privacy Guidelines
Be sure you pay attention to the case studies in your book:
Finally: After 9/11, privacy issues have become a BIG issue, especially with regard to national security issues. On your own, check CJR.org, RTNDA.org and Poynter.org to examine what those issues are. To what degree should our personal privacy be compromised in the interest of national security?
Resources and Links:
"The Bummer Beat." Poynter Institute at http://www.poynter.org/Research/me/et_index.htm
Dr. Janet McMullen