Right to Privacy vs. the Public's Right to Know

One of the most controversial ethical dilemmas that journalists can face is the question of the right to privacy versus the public's right to know. While this is a topic that we will examine in more depth later in the semester when we explore media law, CNN's recent reporting following the aftermath of the tragedy in Libya has brought that question into the spotlight.

In brief, CNN obtained a personal diary belonging to the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed earlier this month when the U.S. embassy in Libya was attacked. CNN was severely criticized by the State Department for invading the ambassador's privacy when it reported some of things contained in the journal. 

But CNN has defended its action, claiming that it only reported information of news value that the U.S. government doesn't like -- not any personal information about Stevens himself.

Read the criticism and watch the CNN video to become familiar with the story. What are your thoughts?

Creative Commons photo by mohamedn

Putting quotes in context

As the presidential race heats up, we will occasionally take a look at various things the candidates say and how they are covered in the media. Our first example is taken from a speech President Obama gave this past summer.  Listen to the specific part of the speech that caused such an uproar before reading any further.

After listening, you might wonder, "So? What is the big deal?" But Republicans and the media were quick to pounce on the President's words "You didn't build that." For example, click here to read how Fox News seized on that quote and put a negative "spin" on it. Make sure you watch the video embedded in the article also.

But was the President really suggesting that he doesn't believe in the American Dream of working hard to achieve individual success? This is a classic example of how quotes are often taken out of context. News organizations don't have the time or space to present long quotes to readers or viewers. So they look for the most interesting or sometimes the most controversial "sound bytes". But sometimes, particularly when the people being quoted are discussing complex subjects, picking a short "snippet" of a quote means people aren't getting the full meaning of the speaker's words.

Read this last article to see the full context of the "You didn't build that" line.



Creative Commons photo by DonkeyHotey

More Examples of the First Amendment in Action: For Better or Worse

Despite continued protests in the Mideast and other parts of the world against an anti-Islam video, and despite the violence it provoked that led to the deaths of several Americans, Google has announced that it has no plans to remove the video from youtube. While the White House itself asked Google to consider taking the video down from the Internet, Google is not backing down, though it will block it in specific countries such as Egypt and Libya where the most violent demonstrations have occurred.

Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last week had strong words about the video itself, but listen carefully to what she had to say about the First Amendment. What is your reaction to her explanation to other countries?

The First Amendment is both a blessing and a curse. It ensures people's right to free speech, even when that speech is distasteful or even insulting to other people. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court made a highly controversial decision when it ruled in favor of a church that preaches against gays at military funerals. Read this article for some background on the case, then listen to this CNN interview for a better explanation. Do you think the Supreme Court made the correct ruling?

Creative Commons photo:  IIP State/Meg Riggs

Journalism: Evolving & Adapting

Welcome to a new school year! And welcome, young journalists, to Waldsmith's Dispatch, our journalism class blog. I began this blog in the fall of 2009 and it goes on hiatus when our semester-long class is over. I'm excited to get the blog up and running again because it works as a great tool to accompany and emphasize issues covered in class, as well a place to share your thoughts and comments. Some of the posts will be "greatest hits" of earlier posts; others will be brand new. 

Are newspapers a dying breed? It would seem so. As we've discussed in class and as chapter 4 in your textbook points out, traditional newspapers are fighting to survive and implementing new technologies to meet the needs oa new generation of readers who are more likely to get their news from an iPod or cell phone.

On the other hand, journalism itself isn't dying. Only its mode of delivery is changing and adapting. Meanwhile the trend of citizen journalism is also here to stay. As we saw in the For Neda documentary, ordinary citizens, as well as journalists, were able to use cell phones and social networking sites like Twitter to report news that would have otherwise been suppressed by the Iranian government.

While the digital revolution has enabled us to have incredible opportunities and resources at our fingertips, it has also spawned problematic trends. How, for example, do we sift through it all? How will people know the difference between legitimate news sources and biased or unsupported propaganda? How will people be able to make informed decisions?

NBC anchorman Brian Williams summed it up well:  "It is now possible--even common--to go about your day in America and consume only what you wish to see and hear. There are television networks that already agree with your views, iPods that play only music you already know you like, Internet programs ready to filter out all but the news you want to hear . . . The whole notion of  'media' is now much more democratic, but what will the effect be on democracy?"

The First Amendment is the foundation of an open society. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. Yet the right to free expression often comes into conflict with other rights, especially when it infringes on the safety or morality of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is child pornography or material that is considered obscene in nature. This is why the First Amendment is not just a static document that was written by our forefathers over 200 years ago. Because society and technology change and evolve, the First Amendment is continually challenged by cases that need to be interpreted by the courts. 

For example, click here to read a current court case that involves the First Amendment, then read another version of the story. What is your opinion? Offer a brief comment about the case or anything else mentioned in this post.

Designing, Drafting, Deciphering . . .

As we come to the close of this semester, I would like to end with one of the same topics we first began with:  the future of journalism. It's not as dire as many would believe, as this article points out.

Secondly, remember that it's not just words that we have to be careful with, but photographs and video reporting as well. Thanks to amazing software programs like Photoshop, it's incredibly easy to alter a photograph to make someone or something appear better (or worse). While that's fine for something like a senior picture, it's completely unethical to alter a photograph or video accompanying a news story. You wouldn't change someone's quote. Yet some people don't see anything wrong with changing a photograph. Remember, photojournalism must abide by the same ethical principles of truth and accuracy.

And on that note, here is a video clip from a few years ago when political satirist and TV host Jon Stewart criticized Fox TV's Sean Hannity for playing with the facts, the visual facts that is. Click here to watch the clip from the show. Pay close attention to the video and what Stewart is calling Hannity out for. (By the way, Hannity later apologized for what he called an "inadvertent mistake".)

Mercy sophomore journalism students collaborate on designing a newspaper front page.

I hope you've enjoyed our journalism class and the journalism blog. Each of you has the potential to be an excellent writer and editor, as well as a critical observer of the media. Share a final thought about the article, the video clip and/or what you consider to be the most important thing you have learned about journalism this semester.

Waldsmith's Dispatch will be on hiatus until September 2012 when a new crop of aspiring writers joins me for another semester of journalism boot camp!

A closer look at privacy, privilege and libel

As we wrap up our examination of law and ethical issues in journalism, I invite you to briefly take a look at three examples of situations that involve reporter's privilege, libel and the right to privacy.

One of the more well known cases involving reporter's privilege occurred several years ago when former New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail. It's a rather complicated case, but this is a brief synopsis of it.

As you know, defamation involves either slander through the spoken word or libel through the printed word. But what about social media? Is it only professional journalists who have to worry about these things? Read this article to learn more.

Finally, it seems like technology often leads to less privacy. With the popularity of cell phones and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, do you think people are unconcerned with privacy? The Supreme Court is currently considering a case where technology and privacy are diametrically opposed. 

You can share your thoughts on any or all of these issues.


Flickr Creative Commons photo by Sean MacEntee

Lessons in the Right to Privacy

As Americans, we enjoy many rights, but the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and some amendments in the Bill of Rights protect specific aspects of privacy. The 1st Amendment, for example, protects the privacy of beliefs (freedom of religion).

Defamation law recognizes differences between public and private figures. Unlike most people, who are considered private citizens, a politician or a celebrity is considered a public figure. So if your next-door neighbor is having an affair, publishing a story about it in the local paper would be a clear violation of his privacy. However, when a public figure does the same thing, the press can reasonably assert that such an event is newsworthy. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for example, waged a prolonged legal battle claiming that hundreds of text messages detailing his illicit affair with a co-worker were private. He lost and ended up going to jail for perjury and other charges. 

But sometimes a private citizen injects himself or herself on to the public stage, and by doing so, loses the defense of "right to privacy". If that neighbor of yours is having an affair with a 16-year-old, that information is no longer considered private. Thus the law attempts to balance the public's right to know vs. an individual's right to privacy. If the information is "newsworthy" -- that is, if people have a right or a need to know about something, then that will prevail over a person's claim to privacy.

When it comes to proving fault in a libel claim, the law also treats private and public individuals somewhat differently. Both private and public individuals must prove a publication is at fault, but private individuals only need to prove negligence on the part of the reporter/publication, while public figures must prove actual malice. 

 

Earlier this year,in a remarkable case stemming from the right to privacy, the British tabloid News of the World actually closed for good after a shocking phone hacking scandal. Click here to learn more about it, and be sure to watch at least the first video, "Scandal shuts down British tabloid".

Finally, read this column about the difference between tabloid journalism and investigative journalism.

Creative Commons photo by Howard Lake