In the case of the ABC v. Food Lion debate, I find it most interesting that the debate is now surrounding the journalists instead of the Food Lion employees. Yes, there should be a discussion over the practices used to obtain the truth, but there is still a duty to the public to both acknowledge and punish the company for its violations. ABC’s use of hidden cameras and undercover was for the sake of letting the public know of a wrongdoing, not to embarrass or debase anyone. There was due reason to use these tactics, but since they have been corrupted in the past, it is hard to give ABC the complete discretion to use them.
The second article discusses the use of undercover journalism in a more confidential, as well as outlining a more in-depth code of ethics “checklist”. Again, the debate becomes not about the wrongdoing of those investigated, but the wrongdoings of the journalists who were investigating. There are two types of codes, ones set by publications and one set by the individual journalist, but those may differ. This makes it much harder to determine what the black and white ethical procedure should be, which makes the journalist’s job an even more delicate one. The article says that a journalist should only use undercover tactics when all other means of obtaining the truth came up fruitless and when the journalist will disclose to all parties what went on after it occurred. The journalist in the opening case, Ken Silverstein, failed to do the latter, making his use of undercover journalism up for question. I think there should be a certain degree of input from the reader, considering they are the reason for the journalist’s investigation, and if they do not see any wrongdoings, the debate should cease.
The important piece of the NYT article about the Food Lion case is that the jury was asked to see what was uncovered as true and ignore the hidden cameras and only focus on the lies told by the journalists. This does eliminate the external factors we discussed, which may hurt the journalists because now they are simply being framed, in a way, as supposed liars. Still, the question remains whether the law of truth outweighs the law in general.
In the Columbia Journalism Review, the thing I took away from it was that there has been a precedent set. The precedent here is that countless journalists in current and previous eras have used undercover tactics to find out information and inform the public. Undercover journalism is definitely an “all-means possible” tactic, so does this give journalists the upper hand? There is definitely a certain amount of pure common sense that should be applied when deciding whether or not to engage in such tactics, but still, the overall boundaries are still so blurred that judgment is often a lose-lose situation. In this, if a journalist sticks to “traditional” tactics, they may fail to give the public the truth since they were bound. On the other side, if the journalist goes undercover to get this complete truth, then their ethics may be questioned.
The Zacchini v. Scripps case decided that the press did not have full discretion to post a performer’s full act, likening the performer’s rights to a patent or copyright. Furthermore, states are not required to pass laws that shield journalists from liability in documenting acts because of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Even though the act was done in public, the journalist may not have the right to take it and disseminate it to the mass media landscape. The precedent, Time v. Hill, dealt with a similar privacy issue, but focused more on a “false light” angle, instead of just broadcasting an act.
The discussion we had about whether or not the public should dictate a journalist’s ethics was a painful but necessary one. A lot of times we are told to treat our audience as if they know nothing because they often do. Because of this, we should assume they know equally nothing about the ethics of the profession and should not give them any discretion. But the balance between the truth and the ethics is a tough one, so maybe it is best to leave some gray area.
In regards to Gawker, I do not see what they are disseminating onto the web as journalism. It’s purely a shock factor – click bait even. That’s like someone drawing a line on a piece of paper and calling themselves an artist or doing some math and calling themselves an accountant. There’s more to journalism than just reporting, and it is even difficult to call Gawker reporting.