Good day Prof. Khan and classmates,
My assigned article is titled “Establishing Constitutional Malice for Defamation
and Privacy in the Use of Hidden Cameras (2002)” by David
A. Elder, Neville L. Johnson and Brian A. Rishwain. Elder is a Professor
of Law and author of the Law of Privacy and Defamation: A Lawyer’s
Guide.Johnson and Rishwain are trial counsels specializing on libel, invasion
of privacy and right of publicity.
(Kindly follow the link for the pdf file
To simplify the understanding of the article, I organized it as follows:
(Kindly follow the link for the pdf file
To simplify the understanding of the article, I organized it as follows:
- Definition of Terms
- Summary points of the Article
- Role of the Hidden Camera
- Deception in Journalism
- The case of Food Lion vs. ABC Primetime http://www.scribd.com/doc/102604311/Food-Lion-Suit-Against-ABC
- Cases for Constitutional Malice
- Local Cases (Imbestigador, XXX and Bitag plus an Article from PJR Reports in December 2007 p. 6 "A Bait for a Story" http://www.scribd.com/doc/102604382/PJR-Reports-December-2007)
- Points of Discussion
To facilitate flow of insights from the article, may I request you
to share your opinion on the points of discussion I have provided:
Many journalists continue to believe that they are involved in a
calling so high as to entitle them to rights not given to ordinary citizens.
Are media professionals bound by the same standards of moral conduct as the
citizens they serve?
Why is privacy important to discuss in media ethics?
If the central idea of justice is fairness, meaning all
individuals are treated alike in terms of what they should deserve, what
journalistic guidelines should media practitioners employ as far as deception
and privacy issues are concerned?
The movie, “All the President’s Men,” sums up all the controversies about investigative journalism. This is the film version of the book Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein wrote about their expose of the link between then US president Richard Nixon and an attempted burglary in the Watergate headquarters of the Democrats. While some hail “Woodstein” and the Washington Post for setting journalistic precedence, others also criticized the tandem’s use of deception, source harassment and other “grey” areas of journalistic practice. To Kat’s question, I think journalists are not exempted from the restrictions on freedom applying to “ordinary” citizens. Years after Watergate, the Washington Post had to return a Pulitzer Prize when their reporter, Janet Cooke, was found to have lied in her biodata, which led to the exposure of her fabricated Pultizer Prize-winning article. So from the posture of invincibility, the press now is called to be accountable; i.e., to explain the methods it used to extract information and the reasons for resorting to such methods. It’s not that all journalists are enthusiastically volunteering to carry out this soul-searching. It’s also in reaction to a more vigilant civil society that points out what the press is doing wrong and that they can’t be above the rules governing everyone else.
ReplyDeleteWhat this article does not address is this grey area: are citizen-journalists or those equipped with cameras and smartphones covered also by the same ethical considerations binding journalists? I remember one blogger uploading several photos taken of relief goods rotting in the warehouse of a government entity. The blogger said she wanted to “expose” how this agency was hoarding donations and letting them go to waste instead of channeling them to distressed communities. She was praised for this piece of investigative work. The post, as well as the online reactions, bothered me because: 1) the blogger did not explain how she got to take the photos; 2) the blogger did not try to get the side of the government agency on why the goods were stocked and not yet distributed, knowing how damaging the photos and post would be; and 3) these questions on transparency of methods and fairness did not seem to occur to Netizens. These days, it’s not just TV crews with hidden cameras. Anyone who can afford a phone that’s camera-enabled can take stolen shots, upload them on the Net, and make allegations. Who’s regulating them?
ReplyDeleteI think it's the job of professional journalists to investigate and report on different angles of certain issues. We really can't expect private individuals doing "citizen-journalism" to really dig into issues as they really not trained to do such unlike professional journalists.
DeleteFor me, I believe it's good that private citizens are starting to take it upon themselves to report on what is going on with their society (though undoubtedly it still has its pro's and con's). As it elevates the role of professional journalists by adding context, analysis and direction to certain issues.
(On Ethics) I want to relate this in the work that I do. I am a video documentarian working for a private production and post production company - we mostly cater to NGOs. I remember one of the production shoots that my team attended to. I was not there during the shoot but one of my team mates told me about this story.
ReplyDeleteIn one of the towns (project site) that we covered in Northern Luzon, when the people found out that my team had a camera and they were going to interview some community members for our project (about the services of the NGO had given them), they were apprehensive. Having noticed that, my team made the decision not to force them to agree.
Later that day, my team found out that a crew of a certain investigative TV program came to the town and made a story about them. The story went-- there were many people in the town with psychiatric disorders (from birth) and it was a mystery as to why that happened. When the TV program aired the episode, they were portrayed to be “mga loko-loko”. They felt betrayed. After the airing of the show, other people would tease them - it was so demoralizing for them.
Obviously, the TV program already had the idea (defined them first from what they heard about them from others) and then went there to shoot, instead of finding out first if all of the here-says were real and if it was okay for them to air this kind of a story - the TV program felt that they were entitled to air that story, at the expense of the townsfolk's' being belittled by the public later on.
(Sorry if I sound nega here) Nakakagalit, at dahil dito mas lalong bumaba ang tingin ko sa mainstream media - It may be unfair to generalize - but as far as my experience is concerned, I've noticed that with the mainstream people I've dealt with over time (particularly broadcast, and mostly yung mga wala pa talagang nararating) may ganun na talaga silang kultura. They feel that they are entitled to do whatever they want especially to poor people and the marginalized (IPs). In news for instance where they show suspects of a crime in a police station, I noticed that It is but fine for the media to show how the police hit the suspect (poor) for his "alleged" doing, whereas if the news is about a multibillion earner tax evader, the news wouldn't be as brutal as the former (or, the news would play safe dahil mayaman ang binabangga nila!). I remember one of the recent shoots we had in Cebu. I was able to interview the former maids of the former Libyan leader Gadaffi. They were repatriated during the war outbreak in Libya in 2011. Before the interview, I asked them if it was ok to show their faces in the video interview. They told me, "Naku ma'am, kayo lang po ang nagtanong saamin niyan, kung pwedeng makuhanan ang mga mukha namin, yung iba talaga, yung sa networks parang di na nagpapaalam, kinukuhanan nalang kami ng video"..
I believe that people, no matter how poor and underprivileged, have the right to know the purpose why you are filming them. I believe that they deserve an explanation and the purpose must be communicated to them (Trust is gained). Even in taking photographs in communities for instance, asking permission is a must, otherwise, it is unethical.
"...yung sa networks parang di na nagpapaalam, kinukuhanan nalang kami ng video"
Delete-- that is indeed unethical, but unfortunately, it is not unlawful. And should that act become unlawful (or is unlawful already, which I'm not certain of), the victims are far too powerless to fight against giant networks. And indeed, they will continue to get away with this practice until it becomes "acceptable" to society.
Now, the challenge is: how will the people be informed that it is their right to know a media entity's purpose for filming them, when it's the media itself that violates such right?
I agree with Joanne. All subjects should be given due respect and courtesy, and duly informed of their involvement in any journalistic piece, especially when they are being photographed or filmed. The Journalist's Code of Ethic states that "I shall resort only to fair and honest methods in my effort to obtain news, photographs and/or documents, and shall properly identify myself as a representative of the press when obtaining any personal interview intended for publication." This will ensure that the rights of the subject are respected, and that he/she is given the a chance to give their side, in the spirit of justice and fairness.
ReplyDeleteWhat was really shocking with the Food Lion case was not only did the network use clandestine and dishonest means to obtain their story, but it seems to be implied in the article that they were attempting to deliberately set up/frame up the subject to make them look bad and get, or more of "create", a good story out of it, which I find deeply disturbing. For me it shows one of the highest forms of media abuse, and its scary to think of the consequences of such abuses.
The article indeed provided a substantial discussion as to how the use of hidden camera in the news has violated rights in a number of ways. What was also commendable about the article is the fact that it took a step to ask for judicial acknowledgment regarding the possible effects of hidden cameras to subjects that were caught red-handed.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to provide additional insights to the local cases I have posted relevant to the issue at hand. The programs like Imbestigador, XXX and Bitag are no different from what happened to Food Lion and ABC. Their intentions might be good, perhaps even to serve as a warning for the public. However, their method might pose a lot ethical issues. They also have to consider that at times, the victims of hidden cameras are powerless and those who cannot afford to pay a good lawyer to defend them. These victims may be the culprit but he/she is still entitled to a fair trial. Unfortunately, one cannot control the reactions of people towards what they saw on TV. Thus, the suspect is already branded with many names even before being proven guilty of a crime.
Another effect of hidden camera use was shown by the PJR Article "A Bait for a Story." This is when the media uses accomplices, especially minors, in their set-ups. During very dangerous situations, accomplices might get traumatized by the course of events and create a lasting effect in their personal lives. The media must also consider these possible consequences of their methodology.
I agree with Mayette that a gray area in the article comes when the issue of citizen journalism is raised. For instance, being a Citizen Patrol (ABS-CBN) or YouScooper (GMA) may promote social responsibility as it gives people the opportunity to air public concerns, but I think the networks should also take an effort to inform these people about responsible reporting.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that all journalists must strike a balance two important principles:
1. Journalists must actively seek out and investigate truths (accuracy, balance, fairness and objectivity), in an independent manner (without any special favors).
2. Journalists should use freedom responsibly, by avoiding unnecessary harm and by being accountable.
I want to share the insights of the Filipino film “Jay.” It tells the story of creating a documentary about the life of a murdered teacher. It presents the dynamics between the TV producers and the impoverished family of the murder victim. The film clearly presents the exploitation of TV as a powerful media that shapes the consciousness of the people in dealing with issues such as justice and truth because it has the seemingly omniscient power to include and exclude details of real situations. TV, considered as an idiot box, perpetuates the heartless system in exploiting people for its advantages.
ReplyDeletePresenting this sample, my point is, the public / audience has also the responsibility to be vigilant as not to allow journalists to exploit their privileges. Since, you already pointed out that some journalists feel so privileged that they have the right to interfere in any way they can and any time they want, on the other side of the fence, the audience must also assert their power that “exposes with the use of hidden cameras or sensationalized news pretending to be investigative stories” are not what they need but well-researched and balanced information. If the audience does not patronize such news / feature story presentations, I’m pretty sure many of these formats have already been defunct.
Rule number 3 of the code of ethics formulated by the Philippine Press Institute says: “I shall resort only to fair and honest methods in my effort to obtain news.” Ergo, the use of hidden cameras and “assets” are downright unethical. However, we all know that the entire issue is not a black-or-white thing. Many factors have to be considered. Whose interests are at stake? Which of those interests should be given more weight? How can a balancing act be done?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, invasion of privacy (particularly through the use of concealed cameras) is only justifiable if there is an overwhelming public interest that must be protected. Imbestigador, Bitag, and XXX is right in using hidden cameras in exposing corrupt government officials and the unsanitary condition of food processing facilities. What about when they use hidden cameras prior to raiding prostitution dens? That seems to be another story altogether.
I still think the use of hidden cameras in news gathering is ok as long as they would not resort to orchestrating situations just to make their subject look bad. I believe that it is indeed a powerful tool for journalists especially when the issue being tackled is of national/public interest.
ReplyDeleteActually, I salute how primetime newscasts today uses this medium to really get the public involved with what's happening in their community.
Hi, Mr. Lee. Just a question. What do you mean by "orchestrating situations just to make their subject look bad"? Does this include entrapment operations (which is a staple of all those investigative shows mentioned above)? Without a doubt, those situations will really paint certain parties in a bad light.
DeleteTelevision can easily influence people's perception of things. One major point we can derive here is the fact that media entities should be extremely careful in using hidden cameras because it is such a powerful medium.
Exactly.
DeleteRe "what journalistic guidelines should media practitioners employ as far as deception and privacy issues are concerned?"
ReplyDelete-- It is difficult to rely merely on guidelines because guidelines can be easily bent without the threat of getting penalized. In other words, what lacks are CLEAR laws that delineate the exact situations where a journalistic practice is considered a misuse and abuse of the camera.
One of the reasons why I have never been tempted to move to broadcast from print media is that I have always been uncomfortable with using a camera to deliver the news. People change when a camera is trained on them. I feel that it is intrusive by its very nature and make people behave in ways that they normally wouldn't just because they feel the need to get their proverbial 15 minutes of fame. It is intrusive enough as it is, so just imagine how much more abusive it can be when people don't even know that there is a camera and they do not know that their faces will appear on national television. As a general rule, I do not believe in using hidden cameras to get a story. There are always other ways to get the story. I believe it has always been and always will be unethical. It happens all over the world, however, because the stories that come out from hidden cameras make the ratings and people lap them up. There must be something about the voyeur in all of us that makes us want to consume these productions using hidden cameras. Given that, I am just thankful that at least in the little world where I live in the media universe, hidden cameras are not part of the tools of the trade.
ReplyDeleteI also want to give a general reaction to the comments made here on citizen journalism. Because true-blue journalists in both the mainstream and online media cannot be everywhere all the time, they cannot be expected to come up with all of the stories that matter. There is also the issue of space in print as well as time limitations for broadcast and even online. But like a classmate said, citizen journalists should also undergo some training to deserve the title of being a journalist. I believe that being a journalist means being responsible for everything that he or she puts out on print or in broadcast. Citizen journalists should feel the same because what they put out there will have an impact on the people as well as on the subjects of their story. Issues of fairness, truth, accuracy and balance should be inculcated in their minds just so they do not become trigger happy, especially in these days when it is so easy to ruin somebody's reputation or somebody's life because of social media. THe article is mainly cameras used by established broadcast networks, how about the mobile phone cameras? Those are just as intrusive, and becoming even more so because of the ease at which messages - be they positive or negative - are transmitted across the globe. Just yesterday, the example of the Philip Morris employee who hit the MMDA traffic enforcer went the rounds of social media and has pushed the employee to go into hiding. While his actions are truly deplorable, there are other ways to exact justice, and definitely bullying him and subjecting him to grave threats is not one of them. But with even more phones flooding the Philippines, his example will definitely not be the last.
ReplyDelete