The ethical issue raised by five articles assigned this week is the dilemmas between reporting truth and minimizing harm, especially when reporting on sensitive issues that could put journalists on sketchy ground ethically and legally.
Liability for intrusive or harassing news-gathering activities discuss the privacy-intrusive approach of news gathering such as overly aggressive surveillance and the use of telephoto lens to capture photographs against news subjects especially public figures. The author of the article believes a useful way to determine whether or not a news-gathering activity is being overly aggressive and intrusive to the subject’s privacy is to ask yourself if you would assume it is the place where your would be photographed, videoed or sound-recorded.
SPJ Code of Ethics says to “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public”, which also offers principles to the news gathering activities mentioned above.
How a Minneapolis Journalist Turned a Difficult Situation into a Human Triumph, Recommendations of Reporting on Suicide and Naming Victims of Sex Crimes, the three articles direct at a unified topic that how reporters could appropriately cover sensitive subjects, providing the public with clear and adequate information without traumatizing the related subjects or victims. the SPJ Code of Ethics offers pretty clear principles to direct journalists’ practice in reporting such topics-“show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent, ” states SPJ Code Ethics. However, unlike the ethics code which sounds pretty clear, in the real world, journalists may often find it extremely difficult to strike a balance between keeping the public informed and eliminating the potential harm to people involved. It requires not only well-grounded knowledge in what they are reporting, but also thorough understanding of the overall situation.
Where the Journal News went wrong in publishing names, addresses of gun owners discussed whether publishing a interactive gun ownership map should be considered ethical. The last part of the article, which discusses about the journalistic purpose of publishing some public records, kind of cast light on the ultimate question of all media coverage about sensitive topics-why we are covering it in the way we are covering it now? “If publishing the data because it is public and the public seems to be interested in the topic right now is reason enough, then there are endless databases to exploit,” said the author. Similarly, if publishing the privacy of a public figure, interrogating a victim of sexual crime or uncovering details of a suicide only because the public are curious about the topic, then it simply is not a good reason to cover it. Such an idea also echos SPJ Code of Ethics, which states that “avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.”