original article
The orginal message sent to a number of listserv discussion groups was:
The contrast between what is legal and what is
ethical or moral is never so apparent as in the
issue of the right to privacy of ordinary citizens
from exposure by the harsh light of the media.
This difference is eloquently stated in Christians,
Fackler, and Rotzoll's Media Ethics Cases &
Moral Reasoning.
I'm writing an article for a media ethics journal
and would like to know of one of your own
experiences either professionally or personally
in which you had to wrestle with the legal/ethical
quandary in relation to someone's privacy.
Thanks in advance,
Here are 3 case studies on media ethics that may interest you. The one most pertinent is "The Intruder"
3 separate stories in this file--This ran in September 1991
A Major Conflict of Interest
by Walter M. Brasch
Like reporters everywhere, Keith Martin wanted to be where the action was, and during the first part of the year the action was in the Persian Gulf. Unlike the other reporters, Martin was a double agent. In fact, the other reporters at WBRE-TV, an NBC affiliate in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, where Martin co-anchors the evening news, even proudly proclaimed his conflicting assignments--although they never mentioned the phrase "double agent." They didn't see it as a conflict.
Martin has been a TV journalist for more than two decades. He's also in the Pennsylvania National Guard. Not a grunt, but an officer. A major. As in management. And, he isn't just any officer, but a public affairs officer. Commander of the 109th Public Affairs Detachment. The military's very own flack.
Martin spent a week in February in the Persian Gulf reporting on the war and local units from northeastern Pennsylvania. He wasn't activated by the Department of Defense--apparently even the military have their limits on how many PAOs it can tolerate in combat zones. No, he was there as a journalist, although the distinction between flack and journalist blurred when on-air promotions and fellow reporters identified him as Major Martin. In addition to daily reports, Martin produced a one-hour special in which he interviewed eighty-five troops from Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Now with the war over, there's still stories to report. So, Maj. Keith Martin went to Fort Drum, New York, to report on the encampment of the 109th Infantry, a unit of the Pennsylvania National Guard. For the 6 p.m. newscast, he reported on the training the unit was getting so it can convert to being an armor unit by the end of the year. For the 11 p.m. newscast, he reported on the "excellent" safety record of the 109th.
Because Maj. Martin was on active duty at the time, a part of his 15-day a year commitment, he fed video and sound to all three stations in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre market. Not surprisingly, only WBRE-TV aired his report. And, of course, he was identified on air as Major Martin. But that wasn't completely necessary since he was dressed, on air, in battle fatigues, complete with combat face paint.
The codes of ethics of the various journalism organizations are fairly clear about conflicts of interest. The Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists "must be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know the truth. . . . Secondary employment . . . should be avoided if it compromises the integrity of journalists and their employers."
The Radio Television News Directors Association code states that "Broadcast journalists shall govern their . . . nonprofessional associations as may impinge on their professional activities in a manner that will protect them from conflict of interest, real or apparent." The American Society of Newspaper Editors states that journalists "must avoid . . . any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict." And the Associated Press Managing Editors code declares that journalists "should make every effort to be free of obligations to news sources and special interests . . . Outside employment that conflicts with news interests should be avoided. Secondary employment by news sources is an obvious conflict."
So, what does Larry Stirewald, WBRE-TV news director, say about all this? Stirewald doesn't believe there is a conflict of interest. "We make it very clear that Keith is in the National Guard," says Stirewald, noting that "as long as you're straight forward with the people, it's all right." He says that all journalists have conflicts, and that "being a professional means compensating for whatever baggage you're carrying." Then he asks the question, "Why shouldn't journalists [be able to] serve their country in the National Guard?"
Journalists, if they choose, should be able to be in the Guard or any of the military Reserves. Or even the Rotary Club. They just shouldn't be reporting about them.
Story No. 2
May 1995
The Intruder
by Walter M. Brasch
He came to the front door late one Saturday morning and knocked. When there was no answer, he knocked again, then began yelling "HELLO," hoping someone would answer him. When no one answered, he opened the front door, and walked into the house.
"I heard a man shouting 'Hello,' says Rachel Kerr, a 21- year-old speech pathology major at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, and one of two women in the sorority house at the time, "but I didn't go down because I thought it was for someone else."
He walked up the first flight of stairs of the house. Kerr, in her bedroom at the time, heard him, but didn't know if he was friend, repairman, or burglar.
"HELLO!" he again shouted. No answer. So, he walked down to the living room, looked around, left, then returned to the other side of the house and looked around. At the top of the stairwell, alerted by a sorority sister who had just come into the house, was Michelle May, sorority president and a 21-year-old speech communications major.
Before he could identify himself as a reporter for WNEP-TV, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, May sharply told him, "I know who you are. We have nothing to say to you."
He politely asked if there was anyone he could talk with. "I'm the president," said May, "and we don't want to talk with you."
The reporter probably thought he was being fair, trying to get the other side of the story--or at least a decent 10-second "sound bite." After all, a 19-year-old pledge nearly died from alcohol overdose two days earlier in what was rumored to be a hazing incident.
"Can you at least tell me her name?" he asked. May refused, then told him, "You can walk out of this house, just like you walked in." He walked out of the house.
The reporter says his station's policy is that its reporters may not talk to the media. Officially, he has "no comment."
The women of Chi Sigma Rho were frightened, upset, and acknowledge they may not have been as courteous as they could have been. "We felt violated," said one of the women.
The reporter trespassed upon private property, according to Bob Buehner Jr., Montour County district attorney. The entry, he says, falls under the category of intentional tort, a civil action. However, Buehner also says there probably was nothing criminal about the reporter's entry, and any charges would probably be dismissed in court if there was no damage. For there to have been a defiant trespass, says Buehner, the reporter had to be in the house after being told to leave. To be charged with burglary or breaking and entering, he had to be in the house with the purpose of committing a crime.
Nevertheless, the reporter's actions, although not criminal, violated the ethics and standards of the journalism profession.
"You just don't enter someone's house without being invited," says Reggie Stuart, assistant news editor for the Knight-Ridder News Service and president of the 15,000-member Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). "If you do walk in," he says, "you should stay in the living room until you're recognized. You should never, under any circumstance, proceed to go through the house."
David Bartlett, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), agrees. "I don't think I would have gone into the house," he says, noting the reporter probably didn't exercise "very good judgment." Item 3 of the RTNDA Code of Ethics calls for reporters to "Respect the dignity, privacy, and well-being of people with whom they deal." Bartlett says that the situation in which a reporter enters a house uninvited "might be construed as an invasion of their dignity." The SPJ Code of Ethics specifically states that not only must the media "guard against invading a person's right to privacy," but that "Journalists at all times will show respect for the dignity, privacy, rights, and well-being of people encountered in the course of gathering and presenting the news."
There is a universal implied consent for reporters to go onto private property when there is breaking news, such as a fire. Reporters also usually have access to privately-owned quasi-public institutions, such as malls. However, none of the codes recognize entering a house by opening the front door unless first invited.
During the next three days, the local media ran innumerable stories about the alcohol incident, many of the stories factually inaccurate, some based upon the WNEP-TV reporting.
Four days after the media first reported the alcohol incident, a WYOU-TV reporter and his cameraman stood on the sidewalk before the house and, say witnesses, "taunted" sorority members following a university-wide meeting. "This is your chance to tell your side of the story," he said, a perfectly acceptable request, and important in the issue of fairness. But, say witnesses, he also kept taunting the women. "Tell us. Tell us," he kept saying over and over. "You look guilty if you don't say anything. Why don't you talk? This is your chance." He even told the women, "You need to take advantage of the media for your own good." Three times the women asked the reporter to leave. That night, he identified Chi Sigma Rho as "the bad girl sorority," while the station aired footage of the women persistently yelling for the reporter to quit bothering them and to leave.
The public has a love-hate relationship with the media. They want the press to meet its obligations to make sure the public knows what's happening in society. But, they also hate the way the media go about their jobs. Surveys show media credibility is at one of its lowest levels historically. The public is upset not only with factual, grammatical, and spelling errors, but also with the media's failure to admit mistakes, with poor writing and editing, reliance upon unnamed sources, glorification of the criminal and of the bizarre, the failure to report on itself as well as it tries to cover other American institutions, and perceived unfairness, political bias, conflicts of interest--and with both "ambush journalism" and the invasion of individual rights and privacies.
"We know we were wrong to allow a minor to drink," says May. But, she and her sorority sisters also have every right to be upset with what the media may have done to them and to the media's own credibility.
Story No. 3
This ran May 1995
Politically Incorrect Weather
by Walter M. Brasch
A high-pressure front swept across the newsroom of KMJ-AM, Fresno, California, with a 100 percent certainty that it would leave a new low in its wake.
Depending upon whom you believe, weatherman Sean Boyd was either fired for being accurate, or program director John Broeske had finally had enough of Boyd's insolence and refusal to be "a team player." Boyd, an independent contractor, had forecast weather as many as 20 times a day for 17 years at the station.
However, for at least the second time in two months, Boyd was politically incorrect, a sin for anyone in our society, but especially so for a weatherman whose continued employment may have been based upon being meteorologically inaccurate.
In March 1995, Boyd had determined there was a better than average possibility that it would be partly cloudy, breezy, and cool for a station-sponsored golf tournament. Boyd says he remembers his program director suggesting that it would be better if the forecast could say it was partly sunny, not partly cloudy.
Actually, why not report it would be mostly sunny with highs in the 70s and "let people make their own decision," Boyd remembers Broeske telling him. Nevertheless, Boyd stuck by his forecast; the weather for the divot swingers that afternoon was, in fact, partly cloudy, breezy, and cool.
Two months later, Boyd again got into trouble. KMJ, which carries the Rush Limbaugh talk-show, was sponsoring the Second Annual Dittohead Barbecue and Politically Incorrect Picnic, Saturday, April 15. Since it was already politically incorrect, it was apparently no big deal that it was also Easter and Passover weekend.
Four days before the Dittoheads were to meet, Boyd forecast a chance of showers, based upon reports of the National Weather Service. Broeske possibly didn't think that anyone, including the clouds, had a right to rain upon his plumped-up sizzling raucous barbecued hotdogs. After all, the station, which sends 5,000 screaming watts of conservative thinking into one of the state's biggest media markets, had something of an investment in making sure thousands showed up to celebrate the Biggest Mouth That Roars, even if the Chief Dittohead himself had no plans to attend. So, Broeske strongly suggested that Boyd revise the forecast. Afterall, you never know with California weather. It could have been a wonderful day in the neighborhood.
"Do you want me to change all the forecasts?" Boyd asked, then sarcastically suggested that the program director could just write down what he thought the weather should be, "and I'll tell it just the way you have asked." The program director might have thought about the temptation to move a few clouds but declined. Boyd stuck with his weather report. About 3 p.m. that Sunday, rain began falling upon the char-smoked Dittoheads.
Boyd says he and Broeske had "meetings in the past about how he wanted me to do things." The station manager, says Boyd, even told him that the program director had once mentioned that dealing with Boyd was "like a Chinese water torture."
Ten days after the Dittohead Debacle, Broeske approached Boyd. The Arctic Clipper cold front came with more warmth. "You can say you resigned because of stress and long hours," Boyd remembers Broeske telling him.
Broeske has a different version of the events. "Everything he's saying is completely untrue," says Broeske. However, he cites "station policy" for reasons why he won't discuss the events further. "No comment" is the extent of Broeske's official version.
Apparently other media and their listeners don't have a problem with Boyd's personality or forecasts. Since 1988, Boyd has provided weather information throughout the day, including weekends when necessary, for the independently-owned KAAT- AM/KTNS-FM stations in Oakhurst. "Sean has been very responsible to us and to our listeners," says Larry Gamble, station manager and owner of the radio stations. He says that Boyd not only "provides the detailed information necessary," but also receives "very positive feedback from our listeners." Without question, Gamble is "very pleased" with the quality of the forecasts.
At KSEE-TV, an NBC affiliate in Fresno, news director Eric Hulnick also has no question about Boyd's competence. In the eight TV-station metro market, Boyd not only "has the most accurate forecasts in the Valley," says Hulnick, he's quite simply "the best forecaster in Fresno."
The best forecaster, unfortunately, now has a much smaller audience.
$
***************************************************************************
Walter M. Brasch, Ph.D, Professor of Journalism
Bloomsburg University (Bloomsburg, Pa. 17815)
and President, Keystone State Professional Chapter of
Society of Professional Journalists
717-389-4565 (phone)
717-389-2094 (remote FAX)
brasch@planetx.bloomu.edu (INTERNET)
***************************************************************************
I am president of the Los Angeles City Ethics commission and, though it was not MY personal dilemna, recently: Mayor Riodan has a close personal friend and advisor named Bill Wardlaw, who was the California chair of the Clinton for President campaign in 1992. Wardlaw was diagnosed last month as having colon cancer. He has a one year old daughter and a 6 year old son, and his wife, Kim Wardlaw, is in her early 40s (she sits on the federal bench). Needless to say, this is a tramatic personal event in the Wardlaw's lives. The Los Angeles Times wrote a story about the resignation of the Mayor's key City Hall staff member, Mike Keiley and within that context wrote about Wardlaw's battle with cancer (the point being that the mayor's two closest advisors are now unavailable) . I suppose that a man who is a close personal friend of the mayor, and who advises him on business and political issues is therefore a "public figure", but there is no need for the public to know of Wardlaw's cancer, particularly since he is going through difficult radiation treatment and was only just diagnosed within the past month. On balance, the cost (disclosure causes pain, is voyeuristic) far outweighs any benefit as the public gains nothing from disclosure in this case. You undoubtedly know the published case involving Reader's Digest about a woman who was formerly a prostitute but turned her life around, only to have them write an article years later about her past life.Raquelle de la Rocha UCLA School of Law ********************* E-Mail: rocha@law.ucla.edu Office: (310) 206-9426 *********************
I was sent to shoot a "mug" of a house that had been a hydroponic marijuana growing operation. The suspects bought about 9 houses in the Vancouver area and maintained them perfectly. Even though they didn't live in the houses they had lights and tv sets on timers. In each case there was hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of top quality "celebrity" dope growing in the basement unbeknownst to their neighbors. The house I was to shoot was a very nice house valued over $175k. When I showed up there was an older woman and her adult daughter walking around the house. I told them who I was and started taking pictures. They gave me their phone number so a reporter could talk to them. I was very happy to have a shot of this woman wiping tears from her eyes because the nice house in the background was her husbands childhood home and her family had a lot of fond memories in that house. I even quoted her daughter as saying "Its like they desecreted something sacred." Not to mention, it was a golden late evening light hitting her through some trees and the house was perfectly lit. Later, that evening, when the reporter called to interview her, she had a change of heart. She was afraid the suspects, still at large, would see her picture and seek revenge. She did not want us to publish the picture. You can see the dilemna. I had a very good story telling shot that summarized the community's dismay that their neighbors were high level drug manufacturers. It had emotion, context, and killer light. Given the assignment, I came back with an excellent news photograph that I would have been praised for by my newspaper. We knew these guys would not target the woman, even though, they were still at large. Despite their illegal activities, these were fairly harmless men. They had already contacted their lawyer to negotiate a deal to turn themselves in. In the end, after talking to the woman, my photo editor and I decided the picture wasn't worth putting fear in this woman's life and we did not run the picture. To me this is a perfect legal right to publish a picture and moral justification to withhold it from publication to protect the subject's privacy and identity. TOM BOYD The Columbian/Vancouver, Wash.
>To me this is a perfect legal right to publish a picture and moral >justification to withhold it from publication to protect the subject's >privacy and identity. Hats off to a real pro, Tom. That was a good decision. ========================== Eric Welch Grants Pass Daily Courier
The right decision was made here. Sometimes it's not. Looking at process I find a typical reaction. It's amazing that when a good photo is at stake, all kinds of rationalizations come out of the woodwork. What is worse is the assumption here. A basic rule of journalism was broken. Don't assume. If these guys can maintain nine homes, of course they won't hurt anyone. They will hire someone else to do it. We had a "harmless" marijuana dealer in MA. He said he had rules. Only natural substances and no violence. This was an organized ring that covered more than few cities and towns. With that much money at stake, there is always coercion, violence and death. You should have considered the effect on these people's live and informed them, not the other way 'round. That's your obligation as an ethical journalist. ______________________________________________ Bill Edmunds 13 Walnut Road Holliston, MA 01746 508.429.7597 http://www.ixl.net/~bille
Congratulations!!!! I applaude you for placing the feelings of another person above your inherent instinct (a correct one, at that) to publish the photo. Once they're convicted and jailed, run the human-interest story about the family home! Howard M. Paul Emergency!Stock Denver, Colorado
Dear Les, My experiences deal with the ethical quandary of invading someone's privacy, and frankly with the techniques that have been successful for me. I don't see any legal problem with the situations I describe. One of the difficult privacy situations we face is when a tragic incident has thrust someone unwittingly into the limelight at the most vulnerable time. I worked such a story in 1984 when I was with the Des Moines Register. I'll spare you the details, but two girls (of roughly the same age and appearance) and their fathers were involved in a car accident. Three of the four were killed, but one of the girls survived with serious head injuries. The identities of the girls got confused at the scene and continued for three weeks until the surviving girl was able to speak her name at the hospital in Sioux City, Iowa. By this time, of course, the mother of the dead girl had spent three weeks at the bedside of the wrong girl, while the other mother had buried the wrong girl. Hell of a story. I rushed on a Monday morning to Sioux City, where it was easy to get an interview at the hospital with the happy real mother of the surviving girl. The other mother lived more than an hour away in Primghar, Iowa. AP had reported when the story initially broke that someone answering the phone at her house had said she would not comment. The Register reporter who worked the story by phone when it broke Sunday night had said the same thing. So did the CBS reporter with whom I shared the interview with the other mother. I had a few hours to deadline, so I set out to Primghar. On the way, I was thinking about the grocery store clerks I'd heard talking about the story that morning when I'd cashed a check to get traveling money. They were shaking their heads and clucking about how they'd surely know their daughters, no matter how bad the injuries. I was planning to find the mother's address and knock on her door. Alas, when I got to Primghar and looked in the phone book, the address was a rural route. I didn't have time to ask around and get directions (and didn't have much confidence that anyone would give them to me quickly; small-town people can be quite protective). So I called. I lucked out, and she answered the phone herself. I identified myself, told her I was in Primghar and just said, as gently and politely as possible, that I hoped she wanted to tell how this had happened. There was a long pause (I was certain she was going to hang up the phone), then she started giving me directions. When I got there, she poured out her heart to me. I was able to ride the story for two or three cycles, just on all the powerful, poignant, crazy things that happened to bring about the mistake and perpetuate it and then discover and correct it. She talked so long I nearly missed my deadline. My point is that people who aren't in the media think it's horrible that we prey like vultures on people in times of tragedy. And I've been in situations where it felt like that, and where people didn't want to talk. I've felt like an intruder at funerals. I was glad for this grieving mother that she wasn't in Sioux City, or she would have had network, wire service and local reporters, plus me, swarming around her place, trying to get a few words or some video. In all likelihood, none of us would have gotten the interview I got. Because she was hard to get to, I was able to approach her personally and what seemed like an intrusion became a welcome release. I've found this approach works well (not with everyone) and have had similar results when I've been able to approach people in grief or crisis individually. Many of them want to tell their story. They don't want to be badgered with a lot of questions. If you can make an personal approach and present it as their opportunity to tell their story (as opposed to you wanting to know what happened), you maximize the feeling of intrusion. I've also done several interviews with rape victims. Talk about invading someone's privacy. Of course, I have to ask questions (as I do with the grieving relatives), but mostly I let the subject talk. My questions are inserted gently, conversationally, usually late in the interview after I've developed rapport by listening. Because rape is a crime in which the victim is stripped of control, it's important that she have a sense of control in the interview. And she really does have control. She doesn't have to tell me anything. So I tell her that. And frequently she tells me everything. **************************************************************************** Steve Buttry Omaha World-Herald 402-444-1000, ext. 2310 (home 402-292-7982) Fax: 402-345-0183 e-mail: sbuttry@synergy.net
Les, your query about privacy reminded me of an incident that happened in late 1979-early 1980. I was working in radio, filling in for the news director (who was on vacation). A story came on the wire about a local guy who was back in court on violation of custody charges (the incident had happened months before). I put the story on the air, since it was local. About 10 minutes after the newscast, his mother called me, crying. She wanted to know why I was dragging her son through the mud so publicly when the original incident had been heavily publicized. Just when she thought it had died down, here we were pumping it up again. I gave her the standard arguments (as best I could--I was 20 at the time), but I wasn't very convincing. At the time I was somewhat shaken. It brought home to me that every story is about real people who are listening, whose relatives and friends are listening. I use the story in my classes to try to let students know that news is personal, and there are real ramifications to real people from even a seemingly-straightforward court story. I'm not sure if this is what you were going for, but I thought you might find it interesting. John Weispfenning Dept. of Communication Otterbein College Westerville, Ohio
I don't know if the attached file is of any help to you but its a research paper I recently had to write for Postgraduate Law studies at Melbourne University...its a bit amateurish (my first research paper) but it DOES have quite a few anecdotal things re privacy and there might be something there for you. regards Rex H
Do a lit search for the recent happenings at the courthouse in Rockville, MD, if you are not already doing so. I have just hearsay and haven't really been following the story, but since you asked... A murder suspect was apparently ready to plead guilty to the murder of several people in Potomac, MD, but changed his mind when he realized CNN would broadcast the plea, and his grandmother would see it. A family member of the victims told someone I know that CNN was badgering him and he spooked. There are allegations that a front-page article in the Washington Post also played a role, but the Post says they don't have an ethical/moral problem with it. I think the article ran Saturday. All I have is hearsay. danw Dan Wendling Manager of Publications and Collection Development National Rehabilitation Information Center Silver Spring, MD
Les, I'd suggest you talk with one or two of the reporters and editors on The Register's fertility team. That story raised nightmarish privacy issues since the reporters had to tell women that: a) They knew the women had fertility problems and had received treatment for those problems; b) they knew the women's eggs had been given to others; and c) they knew (in some cases) that the donated/stolen eggs had resulted in live births. The main reporters were Susan Kelleher and Kim Christensen. The principal editors were Jim Mulvaney and Terry Wimmer. All work in the Santa Ana office; main newsroom number is 953-7951. -- Ronald Campbell
Prof. Lester: About a year into what is now a 25-year journalism career, I faced a dilemma that have thought about many times. I was working at 3,000-circulation weekly newspaper in a quiet mountain town in northern Arizona. We rarely locked the doors to our houses. Always left the keys in the ignition. There were no traffic lights and one fast-food franchise, but only the touri sts ate there. That's why the whole town was devastated the day an 8-year-old boy riding home from school on his bike was hit by a car and killed. The accident was big news for a small town. I got pictures and information at the scene. My editor said I should talk to the family and get a photo of the boy. I was a new reporter, 19-years-old, and it was the first time I had ever had to deal with a gri ef-striken family. He had a large family and they were all in the living room crying while I talked to the boy's mother. Through her sobs she asked me if I had to write that she wasn't the boy's mother? My confusion must have been obvious. She said, "don't you reporters get to see the death certificates?" I said I hadn't. Painfully, she explained she was actually the boy's grandmother. The sobbing teenage girl curled up in the armchair - whom everyone knew as his sister - was actually his mother. "Do you have to print the truth?" they implored. All tear-filled eyes in the room were on me. I needed to make a decision right then. In that moment I could think of no reason - no public benefit - to adding humiliation to this family's grief. I agreed to maintain the fiction. In the nearly 25 years that have passed since that difficult and painful day, I have checked myself on that decision. To me, a journalist's ethics are rules-of-conduct that enhance credibility amongreaders and viewers. My test is whether my audience would think "more" highly of my story (and me) or less, if they knew how I got it, how I assessed it, how I handled the peo ple involved and how I used the information. I believe in that case, my readers would have agreed that my decision to tell write something I knew was not true was the correct ethical decision. ------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Robertson, investigative reporter e- rrr@indirect.com KPHO-TV Channel 5 (a CBS affiliate) ph- 602/650-0772 4016 N. Black Canyon fx- 602/650-0786 Phoenix, AZ 85017 pg- 602/593-6930 -------------------------------------------------------------
(Dr?) Lester-- I'm a news producer for Nebraska Public Radio. I'm not sure If this qualifies for the kind of story you're seeking, but here in Lincoln, NE, I did some work on the story involving the Catholic bishop's threat to excommunicate some church members who belonged to the wrong organizations. I did several interviews for the 5-minute radio piece, some with church members under the threat of excommunication. As I did the interviews, I did find myself wrestling with the issue of just which questions were legitimate and which questions were invasive. I was not dealing with a simple sequence of events, or an argument over politics, I was dealing with deeply held beliefs and culturally intimate worldviews. I remember two specific questions: 1) "Why not vote with your feet?" That question brought the most memorable moment of the interviews. The man looked up at me and said adamantly, "My family has been Catholic for fifteen hundred years!" The other question dealt with whether or not an attempt would be made to receive communion. I was told politely and firmly that would not be public knowledge. Should the question have been left unasked? The short answer is "I don't know" The other issue in the story is what I'll call the "pestering media" issue. The story got not only national, but international play. Some of these people I'd dealt with on other stories, other topics, and I know they were getting real tired of the phone calls precipitated by an action they had little control over. The foregoing is offered 'for what it's worth.' If I can answer any other questions about the story, I'll be glad to reply. Keith Ludden Lincoln, Nebraska
Les: I saw your msg on CARR-L seeking journalists who have run into moral/ethical quandaries. I've got a doozy for you. It happened just last month. As you can see from my sig, I cover courts. More specifically, I cover civil courts. Recently I ran into an extremely odd lawsuit. In a nutshell, a construction worker *intentionally* cuts off his own hand, refuses to have it reattached at the hospital, then turns around 2 years later and sues the hospital and doctors for *not* reattaching his hand. He wants $10 million. The catch, of course: He was psychotic at the time. He cut the hand off because he saw the number 666 on his hand, and followed the Biblical instruction to cut off your hand if it offends thee. So the legal claim is this: I was psychotic at the time of the incident, the doctors in the emergency room clearly knew this, they even had a psychiatric resident examine me and declare me psychotic. Therefore, he claims, the doctors had no business seeking my consent to the reattachment surgery, as I was mentally incompetent and could not render such a decision. He says the doctors should have sought his parents or sister to make the decision for him. So far, so good. Here's the question: Do you name this man in the story? I argued, and my editor agreed, that it would be ethically wrong. We had every *legal* right, certainly. But if the man was truly psychotic -- and the evidence clearly suggests he was -- then he wasn't responsible for his own actions, and it would be wrong to identify him for the entire community to ridicule. He has a mental illness. It would be like identifying a mentally retarded person for the purposes of ridiculing him in the community. It would be cruel and unnecessary. The fascinating part of this case isn't the man's name; I doubt more than a handful of people actually know him. It was the legal issue involved: Can a man really cut off his own hand, refuse medical treatment, then sue the doctors for following his instructions?? Interesting question. My editor and I agreed to withhold the man's name. But then, if we didn't name the plaintiff, would it be fair to name the doctors? What about the hospital? We decided to withhold the doctors' names, too, since it would be unfair to have them respond to anonymous criticism. But we agreed to name the hospital, which is part of the biggest medical corporation in town. In the end, I'm comfortable with our decision. I called the man's lawyer, who was horrified that I had even discovered the lawsuit, but agreed to talk with me *by name* on condition that I not identify his client by name. I agreed, and he added detail to make the story more complete. I know this is a long msg, but I want to add one more complication: After my story ran, it was picked up by AP. The AP rewrite woman called me and asked me to fax her the lawsuit, so she could verify some details. I did. A half-hour later, the story ran on the Virginia and national wires *with* the man's name. I called the rewrite woman, furious, and she said, rather cavalierly, "We have every right to name the plaintiff. It's a public document." I reminded her that I had supplied her the document, and my story made clear why we did not name the psychotic. Both she and her editor were adamant: File a lawsuit, they said, and we name names. So that's how the story went out on the wires, and presumably was printed in papers around the country. I told the AP I felt betrayed and would no longer cooperate with them in the future. A long story, I know. Is it what you're looking for? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Marc Davis Legal reporter : Just my opinion, of course. The Virginian-Pilot : mdavis@infi.net P.O. Box 449, Norfolk, Va. 23501 :
In the state of Washington, a lengthy record of case law has left our citizens with very strong protections against invasion of their privacy by the news media. In fact in our state, it is very difficult to win a libel suit against a member of the media. But within certain guidelines much easier to win an invasion of privacy suit. There isn't much of a gray area between unethical and illegal. Needless to say, much of the lectures to our news staff centers around invasion of privacy issues rather than libel. As you try to visualize the various ways news media may act unethically towards members of the general public, in our state most can result in successful civil action. If our newspaper names a person as a suspect of a crime before he is charged and he his never charged, we will lose in court big time. (We almost never name criminal suspects until they are offically charged.) If we misuse pictures, especially of children, we have a problem. The photos have to be taken for the story. No generic file art with identifable faces. The rule in a nutshell is that if you not a public figure you have broad protections from the press except in issues that have to do with important public concern. Lytton Smith, Librarian 206-448-8359 Seattle Post-Intelligencer LyttonSmith@seattle-pi.com 101 Elliott Ave. W. LyttonS@aol.com Seattle, WA 98119
Every day the photographer on the street has to deal with the question of what you CAN (legal) vs what you SHOULD (ethical) do in regards to privacy. I am a newspaper photographer in New York City and routinely deal with families of victims of violent crime. It is the worst assignment in the world. The photographer on the street has to draw that delicate line in their head and walk that line so they are able to go home at night knowing they brought the best possible image back to their reader without invading the privacy of those who unwillingly were thrust into the media's harsh spotlight. There are no rules or regulations that govern our conduct except for what we have to live with. We had a woman beaten to death Tuesday on Park Ave in Manhattan, one of the wealthiest areas in the world. The employees of the store were standing around in shock and were unaware that the store owner had died. Most reporters and photographers carefully danced around the subject of the woman's death. Everyone patiently and quietly expressed their remorse and still did their job of getting a quote, a soundbite or a photo. One TV reporter rushed over, thrust a mike in the guy's face and loudly demanded "You have to tell me what you just told the other reporters." While the man repeated what he had said before, I would have told the reporter to &^&T(*&^*& himself and would have walked away. His total lack of compassion was a discredit to the other journalists who performed so admirably. I was at a Poynter Ethics seminar last year that should be part of a "licensing" requirement for journalists. Members of families that had relatives murdered spoke of what it was like dealing with the media. Believe it or not it was not a totally negative experience. They did make a few eye opening observations of who we are and what we do. One man who was briefly a suspect in his daughters murder said "I would not want to trade jobs with you when you have to go and knock on the door of someone who has just suffered a loss like we did." I teach photojournalism at NYU and I backup the ethics and photoj and the law classes. Its an eye opener for both the students and the professor! I'd love to see your paper when completed. Good luck. Call me 800 864 6397 x1510 or 2344 if u need any further info. DH Photographer NY Daily News
ethical v. legal This is a good one. Might have told you before. Might be useful now. My first week on the job, just out of J-school, a judge got down on his knees and begged me not to print a story. It happened near Richmond, Virginia, in 1974, and to this day I dont know if I did the most ethical thing. The story had to do with the fact that a county had been running legal notices in a small newsletter with very limited circulation for many years. It turns out that under Virginia law, legal notices have to be run in large, paid-circulation newspapers in order for "due process" to have been served. A story would have led to the re-opening of literally thousands of wills, adoptions, land transfers and (most feared by the judge) divorces. Everything that the equity courts and juvenile & domestic relations courts had done for 10 years could have been thrown out. Public knowledge of the judicial disaster would have led to the correction of some injustices. However, I was persuaded by the judge that the suffering and reopening of old wounds that would occur would far outweigh the correction of some injustices. Naturally, I had no idea of knowing whether he was lying or not. Although I was young and looking for corrupt officials to scalp (it WAS 1974, after all) I had to conclude that I did not want to inflict the kind of mass suffering the judge described to me in his chambers that day. Since I was the only reporter who knew about this, and since my editor wanted me to make the call, I decided to believe the judge. The editor backed me up. The story was spiked. Did we do the right thing? The ethical thing? Of course, the county's legal notices were handled very differently from that day on. Wills remained probated, land remained sold, and lots of divorced people stayed divorced. Still, as an accessory after the fact to subverting due process, I suppose I could have been held accountable. And maybe, somewhere in those wills and land transfers and divorces, were hundreds of people shafted by the courthouse vultures and the willing judges who suckered a green reporter one spring afternoon in 1974. Did we do the ethical thing? We apparently avoided making a lot of people suffer. But I was never happy with that simplistic view. The only sure conclusion I came to is that I never would have felt comfortable with the decision to go public, either. Kovarik
The Minnesota News Council has been working on the fine line between law and ethics for 25 years. Check out our homepage at http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl. Particularly, look for a newsletter article that appeared in the fall of 1995 on the question of privacy of a juvenile incest victim. You can also check out our book of determinations under the heading of privacy to read about other complaints we've heard about invasions of privacy. I'm sure our executive director, Gary Gilson, would be happy to speak with you about other complaints we've received. Our phone is 612-341-9357. I'd love to find out about the cases that you hear about through your query. We produce a twice-yearly newsletter and conduct ethics workshops for students and professionals and we're always looking for good cases to present to journalists. Hope this is helpful.
Les, I have an anecdote you *might* find interesting. It falls into the ethical portion of the debate, although it might not be applicable because it doesn't directly involve the media. It just happens that I work for a newspaper. Here's the poop: I was the head librarian at The Chattanooga Times and would take requests from the public when time permitted. One slow day, an out-of-state caller said he was needing a story about a child being struck by lightning several years ago. I wasn't able to locate the clip for him, but, being a good librarian/researcher/investigator, I was finally able to get the man to tell me what he really wanted. He was trying to locate a family and hadn't had any luck. The children were grown and the mother had remarried. By coincidence, I knew one of the daughters. Excited from solving the case, I went on to tell the man most everything I knew about the family, i.e. marriages, births. I had lost touch with them for a couple of years, but I knew enough to satisfy my patron's questions. I even looked up the mother's phone number and address in the city directory (unlisted phone number). Suddenly, something didn't feel right. I clammed up and didn't offer anything more. As soon as I hung up with the caller, I tracked down my old friend. She started crying when I gave her details of the call. It turns out that my caller was her evil, abusive and alcoholic father. Every few years, she said, he tries unsuccessfully to find them. He never was able to get their addresses, yet I, just as pretty as you please, gave the mother's address to him. They got a restraining order and stayed with some friends for a while. Everything worked out, but he does have what they hid from him for years -- the mother's address. It's great fun to track people. Finding the hidden is what my job is all about. Until that day, I had never thought that some of these people in hiding have legitimate fears of being found. Let me know if I can fill in any blanks for you. Chris -- Chris Hardesty chardest@nando.com News Research Department phone: (919) 829-8935 fax: (919) 829-8916 The News & Observer Raleigh, N.C.
original article