Posts

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SGYJWFxF01IkUYBjr8cFYEx4GaVTAbbm3crwON6ltjY/edit#slide=id.p

In my opinion, the documentary “Smash His Camera” raises the most ethical issues out of all the films we have watched thus far. Legal issues were also brought up, which still continue to play a role in Journalism today. Many view Ron Galella’s practices of photojournalism as creepy and a form of “legal stalking”. Often times Galella would pay door men or some insider to tell him where a certain celebrity was heading so he could race ahead and get their picture as they arrive. Galella even locked himself in an old building to capture a celebrity on their personal yacht without them ever knowing. Was this ethical of Galella to do without the knowledge of the person(s) being photographed? Many view it as unethical and a cross of personal boundaries; however, Galella sees no shame in what he is doing, as he is just simply doing his job.

The times that rose the most ethical and legal issues in Gallela’s career stemmed from his work photographing former President Kennedy’s ex-wife Jacky and their children. By following her car home one evening, he found out where she lived and continued to show up to photograph her and her kids. Galella photographed Jacky in Central Park, on her way to take her daughter to dance class, and even at her kids’ holiday event at their school. Around Christmas, he hired a man to dress as Santa and follow Jacky as closely as possible so he could get a shot of her next to Santa. Again, many found these actions unethical, while Galella simply viewed it as his job.

One evening when Jacky was riding bicycles with her kids in Central Park, Galella caught wind and mapped out where they would be riding. He then hid in the bushes and captured photographs of them riding their bikes, and was not spotted until he came out of the bushes. That was the last straw for Jacky and she told her security to “smash his camera”, ultimately resulting in arrest. They both brought up charges against one another, with Jacky claiming he was scaring her children, and Galella claiming she was obstructing his ability to do his job. It all came down to how public of a figure Jacky actually was. They compared her to Princess Diana and ruled she was an all-access public figure. This ruling was a landmark case in journalism and is still relevant today.

I think this situation was handled properly, and all cases should be handled as such. Unfortunately, the more public a person becomes, the more privacy rights they lose; this means the paparazzi essentially has rights to photograph their lives. When such figures say they do not want to be photographed, ethically it is up to the photographer whether or not they want to continue to take pictures.

In the film “Nothing But the Truth” several legal and ethical issues were raised. Rachel Armstrong, a journalist for a major newspaper, wrote a story which named a CIA worker on a case that was tied to the shooting of the president, which is confidential information. When asked to reveal her sources, even in a court of law, she refused. On Rachel’s side of the argument, she felt it was her duty as a journalist to keep her sources anonymous and not go against her word, which would ultimately harm credibility. On the other side of the argument, this was classified information that was being released unlawfully and it was the government’s job to find out who was leaking this information.

While keeping in mind both sides of the argument, we can look at SPJ’s “Do no harm” rule. As a journalist, would Rachel be doing harm to her source by revealing their name, or did she harm the CIA worker by revealing her name? On the government side, were they being hurt by not knowing which confidant was leaking this information, or were they harming Rachel and her place of employment by being imprisoned over the issue? Legally, I do not believe it was ok for Rachel to keep this kind of information from the government, but ethically, I believe she right for not revealing her sources. I think those are some of the major questions that can be raised to defend both sides of this argument.

Historically, or more recently, we can look at the Risen v. United States case. This case almost mimics what occurred in the movie. James Risen, a journalist, wrote the name of a CIA member who revealed information and he refused to give up his sources to the government. Should Risen, and Rachel alike, be covered by the first amendment or shield laws? I believe that this is a tough issue to handle, especially from a legal standpoint. I believe shield laws should be in place to protect both journalists and sources in cases such as these, because without sources would be less likely to talk and important information would never be revealed to the public. However, I think the government should have the power to force sources to be revealed in cases such as these because it is dealing with national security. If information that could harm the country was leaked by someone inside of the government and they had to power to force sources to be revealed, trouble could arise.

Legally and ethically, this leaves a huge impact on journalism. Journalists have to walk a fine line between being ethical and not revealing sources and withholding information that could be a threat to national security. For journalism, this means sources may be more willing to speak to journalists because they feel safe in revealing information, or less likely to speak because they are afraid of what the government will do to them. I think this is an issue that will continue to be battled in journalism and whether or not shield laws will be put in place is uncertain in my mind.

In the movie All The Presidents Men, some legal and ethical issues were brought up. When news of the Watergate break in first surfaced, Woodward caught wind of a possible scandal with Nixon’s campaign. When Woodward pitched his first story, editors were weary of the content. Information could be wrong which could ruin the Washington Posts reputation as well as Woodward’s career. Once Woodward and Bernstein were both assigned the project, they ran in to this same issue several times. Even as they would gather more information, the story would not be published until sources could be confirmed and information coming from sources was legitimate. From Woodward and Bernstein’s point of view, their information was accurate and they knew their findings were correct, but from the editors point of view this information could not be published until it was confirmed because of the damage it could cause. Legally, false information cannot be published, so this was in the editors best interest.

An ethical issue I noticed was when sources were not willing to speak to Woodward and Bernstein and they would basically trick them. They would continue to show up at sources houses and keep poking at them to talk. There was also a time in which Woodward and Bernstein were not sure of a name, but tricked s source into confirming that their suspicions were correct. I view this as a tough incident because this was the only way to get information for their story, however, sources were almost unknowingly giving up potentially harmful information. If sources were never tricked or constantly bothered by the reporters, the Watergate story may have never surfaced and history never changed. In this situation, I think I would have done exactly what Woodward and Bernstein did, even though I would not feel very good on an ethical basis. This impacted journalism in such a way that reporters continue to deal with these legal and ethical issues today. Whether or not they should publish a story that is potentially not 100% factual, be persistent on sources that do not feel comfortable speaking, or continue to talk to sources that no longer want to be on the record are all issues journalists still deal with today.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!