As I browsed some of my go-to news sites this week, one headline caught my eye: "Press Freedom Fears As Police Question Guardian Reporter" (And though it is about the phone hacking scandal, and it has more to do with British journalism than American, I think it's nonetheless worth mentioning).
According to the article, Guardian journalist, Amelia Hill, has been cautiously questioned by police in regards to her contact with off-the-record sources during her work on the News of The World phone hacking scandal. Basically, she's been accused of publishing information that was leaked by an officer assigned to the case, AKA Operation Weeting. And while this is largely a legal debate, I feel like there's surely a matter of ethics somewhere in there. So, here are the controversial questions: Is it ethical for a journalist to publish leaked information on the basis that it is in the public interest? Is public interest more important that the interest of the police investigation?
Gaurdian reporter Dan Sabbagh wrote this:
Martin Moore, the director of the media watchdog the Media Standards Trust, said that in light of the phone-hacking scandal it was becoming "increasingly important to sustain and defend journalism in the public interest." He said that it was "not the time to be threatening public interest journalism" by the police moving to question reporters such as Hill.
It seems Moore is saying that it is perfectly ethical for a journalist to publish info from an off-the-record source, and that the real unethical action here, is the fact that the police are threatening public interest by going after Hill.
Sabbagh also noted that Michelle Stranistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists said this:
"There is a clear distinction between legitimate off-the-record interviews and the illegitimate payment of bribes."
This brings up another question: Is allowing a source to remain off-the-record the same as bribing a source? I'm going to agree with Stranistreet, and say no.
The general consensus of the article seems to lean towards the conclusion that Amelia Hill's actions were ethical...but that could also be because the article was written by one of her fellow Gaurdian reporters - just a thought. Either way, what do you think?
I'll just paint with a broad brush here. I'd say that many if not most journalists are willing to break *any* ethical imperative if they think the value to society is great enough. So this is one of those situations where I wriggle off the hook by asking for more information and postpone a specific answer. I'm guessing, however, that the Brits have standards similar to ours when it comes to protecting sources; that is, you go to jail rather than giving up a source.
ReplyDeleteAs for promising a source anonymity = giving a source a bribe, that's a wonderful new idea that never crossed my mind. I don't see the analogy. Here's my analogy: I will sell you a used textbook but only if you say thank you afterwards. It's a condition of the exchange but not the substance of the exchange. Or am I being Jesuitical?
To answer your question, Is it ethical for a journalist to publish leaked information on the basis that it is in the public interest? Depends on the value that it would benefit the public. After doing my own research on off the record information, I'd go ahead and say no. No, it's not ethical to publish the information even though it is for public interest. I see it as - if the journalist got the information from an off the record source - plain and simple, it's out of the question. But from the quotes above, it seems as though the journalists are protecting their own - which makes sense. It'd be interesting for me to do some more research on the police investigation....food for thought, thanks Rachel!
ReplyDeleteI think the distinction is that people use "off the record" very loosely. If a cop leaked it, that means he/she expected it to be used - and thus not OTR - but only not for attribution.
ReplyDeleterobertson