Ch. 6 Confidentiality

Confidentiality in journalism can raise up a lot of issues. Journalists have a duty to keep their sources private if they wish, but what if that information is valuable to the public. Shouldn’t the public have a right to know where certain information is coming from? I feel that the public should have a right to know who sources are, but I also feel that sources should have the right to privacy if they are giving up valuable information which could be dangerous for them if they were revealed. I can understand both sides of the issue, but I don’t have an answer as to which would be the right choice. Reveal the source or not?

Justice Robert Stewart had a good idea about regarding confidential sources which I agree with. His three criteria were: 1) the information is “clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law.” 2) Information cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values. 3) There is a compelling and overriding need for the information (p.185). I think that a source should only be revealed if the information meets all three of these criteria. I would still like to know who the sources are for all stories, but I understand that a source has the right to stay private. Their privacy should not be violated unless it meets Stewart’s requirements. Even though all situations can vary, journalists should respect their sources and keep their confidentiality. When the information is of public concern and adheres to Stewart’s rules, then that should be the only time when a source should be revealed.

Right to Privacy

After reading Ch. 5, I was shocked to see how media can ruin people’s lives just by invading their privacy. Media should be held liable for intrusion of privacy especially when it causes harm to those involved. I don’t understand why the media is so intrusive. People’s lives can really be harmed due to the media, for instance the media coverage over the TWA Flight 180 that crashed in 1996. The media completely bombarded Donald Nibert and his family right after they had found out that their daughter had died in the crash. The media took photos without the family’s knowledge as they selected a burial plot for their daughter. The media even went to great lengths by crawling under vehicles just to get pictures of the grieving family.

Another issue that I have about media privacy is the way media deals with sex crimes such as rape. It is a known ethics rule that you never publish a rape victim’s name because of the stigma attached to the victim. What really disappointed me was that the New York Times named a rape victim because a tabloid did it first. Instead of protecting the victim, the Times published her name since it was already out there. Not only did the Times publish her name, but they also named members of her family and even profiled her sex life which completely makes me disgusted. It made me lose some credibility for the Times.

I think that privacy is extremely important to all individuals and the media should respect that. I understand that sometimes privacy should be invaded when the public has a right to know, but only if it is of legitimate concern to the public. Other than that, the media should never intrude on people’s lives just to get a good story.

Are Hidden Cameras Ethical or Not?

In order to make an ethical decision on the case studies in Ch. 4, I relied on the standards of journalism truth which are: accuracy, promoting understanding, and being fair and balanced. In most of the case studies, reporters wanted to be completely accurate but they sometimes had to use deception in order to get the truth. Journalists should always be fair to the public and get the truth, but what if deception is the only way. Should journalists act on whatever means necessary to get the truth, even if it can hurt people? I debated this problem many times in trying to make sense of the case studies and figure out an ethical response to them.

One major form of deception is the use of hidden cameras. When looking at case 4-3, reporter Manny Fernandez is faced with a problem dealing with the employment of illegal immigrants. Sources have told Fernandez that illegal immigrants have been working for Alton Enterprises and have been treated with horrible working conditions. In order to be sure that this was really going on, the only way to get the truth would involve deception.
A photographer from their station would go to work there and secretly use concealed cameras and microphones to capture the harsh working conditions of the immigrants. When dealing with ethical issues, Fernandez was concerned that if the station used deception, then they would lose their credibility. He also didn’t know if the truth would actually help the immigrants or only hurt them worse. Even if they are working under harsh conditions, it still might be better than dealing with the poverty they experienced in their homeland. The two issues that faced Fernandez were “the public’s need to know and the minimization of harm (p.114).” The public has a right to know about the exploitation of immigrant workers, but will this story help the immigrants or only make it worse?

I relied on the standards of journalist truth and I believe that the use of hidden cameras is completely unethical. If Fernandez really wanted to get the truth, he would have to do it by some other means. Using hidden cameras may be accurate, but it does not promote understanding, nor is it fair and balanced.