Comments on: Privacy vs. the Public’s Right to Know http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/ Ethics, Law & Good Practice Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:18:44 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Evan http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Evan Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:32:54 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-69 i happen to think the opposite about this situation. i think that journalism should be unique and everyone shoul have thier own ideas i happen to think the opposite about this situation. i think that journalism should be unique and everyone shoul have thier own ideas

]]> By: Erik Sherman http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Erik Sherman Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:13:46 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-51 Reporters also have to remember that the comments left on blogs, message boards, and online communities are all copyrighted by law. Reporters also have to remember that the comments left on blogs, message boards, and online communities are all copyrighted by law.

]]> By: Anita Bartholomew http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Anita Bartholomew Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:07:51 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-42 What I find troubling is the wanton revelation of personal information that isn't relevant to the matter reported. Your mention, in paragraph 5, of Oliver Sipple's "outing" as a gay man, is typical of the problem. He helped thwart an assassination attempt. Would reporters have thought it worth mentioning if he were heterosexual? Of course not. It has nothing to do with the story. And the public has no right to this private information. However, if a reporter found evidence that a legislator, who repeatedly blocked laws to grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, was himself gay, that's relevant. And the public has a right to know, even if the legislator would prefer to keep his sexual orientation a secret. So, I cannot quite agree with the San Francisco Examiner's criteria, mentioned in paragraphs 11 through 14, because to my eye, a future editor could find a loophole in that term: "vital public interest." It isn't specific enough and could perhaps be used to condone the revelation of private information about virtually any public figure, on the notion that if someone is in the public eye, his or her actions are of "vital public interest." This is becoming more true over time. We need to determine relevance to a story that isn't based solely on celebrity — whether previously existing or instant. To offer extreme examples, if there is evidence that George W. Bush personally ordered torture of prisoners at Guantanamo or elsewhere, that's vital information that the public has a right to know. It has a right to see the documents that support this revelation. However, if an aide tells a reporter that Bush wears women's underwear while relaxing in Crawford, and he can provide the photographs to prove it, that's nobody's business — and a newspaper has no business printing any of it. What I find troubling is the wanton revelation of personal information that isn’t relevant to the matter reported. Your mention, in paragraph 5, of Oliver Sipple’s “outing” as a gay man, is typical of the problem. He helped thwart an assassination attempt. Would reporters have thought it worth mentioning if he were heterosexual? Of course not. It has nothing to do with the story. And the public has no right to this private information.

However, if a reporter found evidence that a legislator, who repeatedly blocked laws to grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, was himself gay, that’s relevant. And the public has a right to know, even if the legislator would prefer to keep his sexual orientation a secret.

So, I cannot quite agree with the San Francisco Examiner’s criteria, mentioned in paragraphs 11 through 14, because to my eye, a future editor could find a loophole in that term: “vital public interest.” It isn’t specific enough and could perhaps be used to condone the revelation of private information about virtually any public figure, on the notion that if someone is in the public eye, his or her actions are of “vital public interest.” This is becoming more true over time.

We need to determine relevance to a story that isn’t based solely on celebrity — whether previously existing or instant.

To offer extreme examples, if there is evidence that George W. Bush personally ordered torture of prisoners at Guantanamo or elsewhere, that’s vital information that the public has a right to know. It has a right to see the documents that support this revelation. However, if an aide tells a reporter that Bush wears women’s underwear while relaxing in Crawford, and he can provide the photographs to prove it, that’s nobody’s business — and a newspaper has no business printing any of it.

]]> By: Sue Russell http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Sue Russell Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:53:09 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-38 And consider the possibility that you might run afoul of the invasion of privacy laws too. I wonder what USA Today would have decided about that piece in paragraph 4 had Ashe not been a public figure (and had his arm twisted into that press conference)? And consider the possibility that you might run afoul of the invasion of privacy laws too. I wonder what USA Today would have decided about that piece in paragraph 4 had Ashe not been a public figure (and had his arm twisted into that press conference)?

]]> By: Kelly Nolan http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Kelly Nolan Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:31:49 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-34 I think a journalist must also consider what details about a person's private life are not just newsworthy, but also relevant to the story being told. Extraneous personal facts irrelevant to the story matter at hand are superfluous and embarrassing-- not to mention unnecessary. Only reveal what you need to make the point-- don't go overboard. I think a journalist must also consider what details about a person’s private life are not just newsworthy, but also relevant to the story being told. Extraneous personal facts irrelevant to the story matter at hand are superfluous and embarrassing– not to mention unnecessary. Only reveal what you need to make the point– don’t go overboard.

]]> By: Uma Shyamala Dixit http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Uma Shyamala Dixit Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:22:01 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-33 In general, I would reveal as little as possible about an individual's private life. Recently, an award-winning journalist told me that he always keeps in mind that the subject's family and friends will wake up in the morning to read what has been written up about the subject. Therefore, he keeps things as objective as possible. I am sure we all agree with this point of view, For most part, there is no point in bringing up a private person's past if it has nothing to with the story. None of us are today what we were yesterday. However, let me take a hypothetical. If I am interviewing a person who says he/she is HIV positive, and also tells me during the course of an interview that he/she is having unprotected sex, then whether or not this is relevant to the story I am working on, I will not let the matter pass. I would consult my editor, and if he/she does not want the newspaper to be associated with the matter, then I would perhaps consult a social worker. In any case, I would not keep quiet. That would be irresponsible. In general, I would reveal as little as possible about an individual’s private life. Recently, an award-winning journalist told me that he always keeps in mind that the subject’s family and friends will wake up in the morning to read what has been written up about the subject. Therefore, he keeps things as objective as possible. I am sure we all agree with this point of view,

For most part, there is no point in bringing up a private person’s past if it has nothing to with the story. None of us are today what we were yesterday.

However, let me take a hypothetical. If I am interviewing a person who says he/she is HIV positive, and also tells me during the course of an interview that he/she is having unprotected sex, then whether or not this is relevant to the story I am working on, I will not let the matter pass.

I would consult my editor, and if he/she does not want the newspaper to be associated with the matter, then I would perhaps consult a social worker. In any case, I would not keep quiet. That would be irresponsible.

]]> By: Clare Trapasso http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Clare Trapasso Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:10:26 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/4-privacy-vs-the-publics-right-to-know/#comment-24 I thought this section was really helpful. I often wonder how much to reveal about a source if they aren't a public figure and they're crucial to your story. I thought this section was really helpful. I often wonder how much to reveal about a source if they aren’t a public figure and they’re crucial to your story.

]]>