Right To Be

By: Kristin Heinichen

Right To Know vs. Right To Privacy

At the very least, a journalist should make an effort to serve the best interests of the reader, all the while doing little harm in the capturing of content and ultimate portrayal of a story. This code of ethics ain't no stumper - it appears as a component in the Journalist's Creed: "...the journalism which succeeds the best-and best deserves success... is journalism of humanity." The media should be regarded as an outlet for respectful news coverage, not a source for sensationalized stories which broadcast the details of an individual's privacy. In the case of Privacy vs. the Public's Right to Know, revealed names and graphic imagery had little importance other than it attempted to make for an entertaining story. What it did was humiliate loved ones and mortify those directly impacted by these printed stories.

A 'for instance' is the case of an attempted suicide on the campus of Ohio University. The local media covered the event where a man threatened to take his life in a public space. The Athens Messenger - your neighborly neighborhood newspaper - chose not to run the photo of the man dangling from a high height. The area's bi-weekly newspaper, The Athens News, ran a photo of the man in the middle of the his second, and unsuccessful, suicide attempt. Ultimately and unfortunately, the man ended his life. What The Athens Messenger considered was the man's shaky grip on his life. In attempts to tell the truth, the journalists at the Athens Messenger considered the welfare of this man and society.

TMZ Generation

Whitney Hare
WH296805@ohio.edu

Celebrity gossip has become a staple in society today. People turn to TMZ and Perez Hilton for their information on a daily basis. Yet readers rarely take the time to think about how the information they're consuming was obtained.

Who has the right to privacy?
Many people tend to argue that celebrities have put themselves in the limelight and get what they deserve in terms of the paparazzi. But the intrusive stalker-like mentality some press now takes, puts these celebrities at risk. They are citizens of America like everyone else. They have just as much a right to privacy as the next person. Yet people thrive on the information about these celebrities regardless as to how it is obtained.

Who is at fault?
There have been countless videos of celebrities trying to leave a restaurant and just enter their cars. It is almost impossible with the mass crowd trying to get pictures and video of them. And every now and then there's a video of a celebrity flipping out on the paparazzi. Can they really be blamed though? They are basically stalked at all hours of the day by people trying to get a picture of them in just the wrong light doing one bad thing. It would be enough to make anyone snap.

Haven't we learned our lesson?
After the death of Princess Diana, many ask why we haven't learned our lesson. One of the biggest questions is why laws have not been enforced to protect those at risk to prevent another such tragedy. The public was outraged when Princess Diana died, and they blamed the media for her death. Yet still today, people turn to websites like TMZ. This website uses the same tactics that killed Princess Diana just to get videos and pictures of people who do in fact have a right to privacy.

What can be done?
I believe people need to speak up about this problem. If they truly blamed the media for Diana's death, they can't just sit by while those same practices continue. By continuing to watch the intrusive videos, people are only saying they want to see more. If they didn't watch and have such a high interest, why would paparazzi continue to act as they do? It's because the videos are in such high demand that they are so relentless. What will it take for the public to speak up enough to make it stop? Another death? Hopefully the problem can be solved before it comes to that.

Calling all sugar daddies: journalists need you!

Arden Gibney
ag192305@ohio.edu

Kathy Kiely, a colleague of Tony Loci, the USA Today reporter who was court-ordered to reveal her confidential sources, said that one day journalists will either need a sugar daddy or a huge insurance policy to continue working in the field. Her comment came in the wake of the 2003 incident when Loci refused to turn over sources' identities in her coverage of a "person of interest" in the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. As a result, a judge ordered Loci pay up to $5,000 each day she continued to withhold her sources' names.

Doctors have legal rights to protect the privacy of their patients, and lawyers enjoy a similar privileged with their clients. According to a USA Today poll, 42 percent of Americans strongly agree that journalists should also have legal rights in place to protect the identities of their sources. Currently, 34 states have shield laws in place, but there is no federal legislation to protect journalists reporting national stories.

From Watergate to Abu Ghraib, confidential sources have been relied on to break some of the nation's biggest news stories. According to the Society of Professional Journalists' president, Irwin Gratz, a federal shield law would "prevent the self-censorship and timidity sure to result if journalists come to believe that prosecutors will come after them on a regular basis and sources fear exposure when they least want it."

So why haven't these laws made it through the legislature? For some, it's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" excuse. Write/blogger Wendy Hoke contends shield laws would amend a system that already works the way it should.

I think Kiely had it right. It's hard to imagine a federal shield law going on the books any time soon, so perhaps journalists should be on the prowl for a willing financial backer to help them pay court fees and penalties – aka, a sugar daddy. In the meantime, SJP is leading the charge for a federal shield law.

How much is too much?

Matt Hook
mh174104@ohio.edu

Today's age is one of instant access. We as a people decide that we need our information now and we need it wherever we can get it. Long gone are the days when we would sit and read our newspaper while we sipped our morning coffee. We go to work, checking our email and news updates on our Blackberries and iPhones. You want to be able to trade stocks or update your Facebook? There's an app for that. Want to be able to stalk your favorite celebrity and find them around town? Definitely an app for that.

Because of our obsession and need for information that comes instantly, we have resorted to a need for voyeuristic transparency with every desired piece of information we find relevant or interesting. After reading about the Princess Di fiasco with the media, it certainly raised the question, do we really need to know what Tom Cruise did in the bathroom? I mean really, it's a bathroom. There are only a certain number of things you can do in a bathroom.





Now the question is how do you solve the dilemma from an ethical standpoint? It is hard to deny that these people have the legal right to take photos in a public area or report that certain people were present in a public place. But how close are we to invasion of privacy?

As much as we have a right to information, don't the subjects of our articles have a right to privacy as well? We as journalists have a responsibility to step back and evaluate what is pertinent to our audience and what is newsworthy. This is a major issue for us to reign in during a time when we are viewed as intrusive and meddlesome. We would do well to heed our audience, before we indeed become a dying breed.

A Fountain of Ethics

Megan Gorey
mg908407@ohio.edu

My whole life, we have had pit bull-terrier mix puppies as pets and have stood by the motto that you should only judge the deed, not the breed. And no matter how cruel, invasive, or mean you may feel that the media may seem… they are comparable to pit bulls.

It's easy to be angry.

It's often one of the easiest emotions. This is why it makes sense that the public would be outraged with the media immediately following Princess Diane's death. And in the wake of the tragedy, it was hard to remember all of the responsible, tasteful and tactful reporting that was done following all of her accomplishments in the palace.

In April of 2008, the editors of The Sun, Daily Mirror and News of the World admitted that they had helped create an atmosphere in which the paparazzi chasing Diana when her car crashed in a Paris underpass, were out of control. The media was wrong and had crossed the line. Period. End of the story.

However, as a journalist, I feel the need to distinguish myself apart from paparazzi. We may be from the same family, but for reporters and anchors, the paparazzi are more like our distant, delinquent cousin.

“The Diana Aftermath” article talks about the public opinion polls and the exercise of the First Amendment. Before any journalism student takes a college course, he or she learns that you have rights granted to you by the Constitution unless that right infringes upon the rights of another person.

The paparazzi infringed upon the rights of Princess Diana.

It takes only a few to ruin earned privileges!

[The press has a moral obligation to balance profits and public benefits, because it is the only business given explicit constitutional protection, says Lutman of the National Press Photographers Association. "It isn't necessarily our responsibility to give people what they want, it's to give them what they need. "Those who put profitability ahead of public service, he says, "are betraying our profession." ]

by Brooks Jarosz

bj186905@ohio.edu

In the article entitled, "The Diana Aftermath," published by the American Journalism Review, it is easy to see why the media was blamed and criticized for going too far with the story of Princess Diana's tragic death. I remember watching the funeral as a young boy and seeing the horrifying photographs on CNN. While some were disturbing, it drew me in to the story and made me keep watching.

As a journalist, many aspects of Diana's life and the accident were well covered. Reviewing these reports do, however, resemble entertainment values rather than true journalistic news values. With "a diversity of not only sources, but alternatives to news" as described by Ed Turner of CNN, incidents like this show how difficult it is to distinguish between tabloid media and mainstream media.

Comparison: Diana's Death & Palmerfest

The paparazzi behavior on the night of Diana's death could be blamed for the accident. Questions of privacy, responsibility and Press Freedom all play into this story. There is a gray, blurred line that separates journalistic excellence from irresponsibility and disrespect. It is a privilege to be able to report and photograph without strict government oversights, unlike nations such as China and Japan. It only takes a few abusive "journalists" to ruin a societal responsibility in covering daily stories fairly.

These individuals, termed paparazzi, are similar to those engaging in unruly conduct this past weekend during Palmerfest. The yearly festival on Palmer Street in Athens, Ohio, was shut down after fires were set in the streets and "a near riot" occurred. Some immature individuals assaulted officers with beer cans and other airborne objects. Now, the celebration which 8,000 people attended is questionable for future years and the amount of police presence if the festival continues.

Hard to believe that a festival, which has been peaceful for many years, can change in the blink of an eye. Press freedom is no different. Working for years to establish 1st Amendment Rights can easily be taken away if critical abuses are made. So what is our responsibility? It begins with respect and fairness. Let's seek the truth, report it, and stray from creating a story in the pursuit of flashy, celebrity nothingness.

Editors Should Evaluate All Possible Outcomes

Don P. Jason III
Dj320306@ohio.edu

Chapter 17 in “Moral Reasoning For Journalists” is extremely relevant to Ohio University because it gives an example of a situation that occurred in a university setting and the press coverage that followed.

I feel it was wrong to publish the name of the individuals caught having sex in the elevator because it served no purpose. The event was “interesting,” but not news-worthy. Hypothetically speaking, had there been a rape in the elevator the school paper would not have published the names even though that story would be more newsworthy. Also the editor should not have been so quick to publish the names. What if the situation had been investigated further, and then later called a rape.

Also, the people who were caught in the elevator were not famous or members of the university staff so I truly cannot find the relevance for publication in the story. In college just as the school gives journalism majors a forum to practice their craft it also gives everyone the chance to grow socially and emotionally. By putting an unnecessary story in the print, it essentially ties this embarrassing fact to the two people involved for the rest of their academic careers and possibly through their professional careers. To me, a few laughs and giggles is not worth jeopardizing someone’s future.

The author also had an immature attitude about why she included the names in the story. However, she did admit when interviewed years later that she would have thought longer about publishing the names. To me if a decision requires a huge thought process, it might be my conscience telling me I am about to make a mistake.

I feel that The Post here at Ohio University would have covered the same story and ran the names. The book makes a good assertion when it says “Audience attitudes can be a powerful influence on journalists trying to make ethical choices… An audience that is generally tolerant of embarrassing information about individuals in their midst may give journalists a sense of license to publish such information" (p. 139).

Basically journalists give the audience what they want. Instead of the public blaming journalists for prying into people’s lives to find the juiciest pieces of gossip, the public should blame themselves for wanting this kind of information to begin with.