The news of a bomb blast at an overseas army barracks sent shockwaves through a small town where five of the soldiers lived. One of died.

A reporter, working for the local newspaper, was sent out to knock on the door of the soldier who was killed. This is called ‘doorstepping’ in newsgathering.

The newspaper’s news editor, driven by the need for a compelling local angle, wanted a photograph of the soldier and quotes from his grieving family.

The reporter arrived at the family home to find the curtains closed. Residents in neighbouring houses had also closed their curtains in a communal show of sympathy and respect.

As the reporter knocked on the door he heard whispering inside. He knocked again, the whispering stopped. All was still. It was clear the family was inside, but it was also clear that family members didn’t want to answer the door.

The reporter called the news editor to explain the situation. The response was firm: “Keep trying, we need a photograph and a quote”.

The reporter was told to “stay there until you get something”. Although he understood the news value of persisting he also felt uncomfortable intruding on a family in mourning.

Driven by the news editor’s instructions the reporter went back to the house. As he arrived a woman at the house next door stopped him and pleaded that he leave the family alone “they’ve suffered enough”, he was told.

The reporter was caught in a painful ethical bind:

• The pressure to perform: He didn’t want to let his news editor down and was afraid that if he didn’t get a photo and a quote another reporter would and he would be seen to have failed at his job.
• The moral imperative: He recognised the profound grief of the family and the inherent violation of their privacy and didn’t want to intrude.
• Afraid of confrontation: He didn’t want an unpleasant confrontation with family members.

Faced with this conflict, the reporter made a compromise. He called the news editor, falsely claiming that the family had left and that he had just missed them. The news editor then instructed the reporter to interview neighbours, which he did, obtaining valuable information and a photograph. He also scribbled a note of condolence with his name and phone number on then posted it through the door. While this resulted in a story for the newspaper and left the grieving family undisturbed, the reporter had resorted to dishonesty.

Did the reporter do the right thing? And, if not, what should he have done?

Suggested right action:

The ethically sound course of action would have been for the reporter to:

1. Communicate honestly: He should have told the news editor about the  neighbour’s plea and shared his own ethical concerns about intruding on the grieving family.
2. Alternative action: He should have explained that he had left a handwritten note with his contact details inviting the family to get in touch if they felt able to talk to him.
3. Advocate for sensitivity: He could have suggested other alternatives such as publishing a respectful tribute to the soldier based on information from friends and community members, rather than pushing for a direct, intrusive interview with the bereaved family.
4. Stand firm on ethical principles: If the news editor insisted on intrusive tactics, the reporter should have respectfully but firmly reiterated his ethical objections, even if it meant risking his job.
5. Seek alternative angles: The reporter could have explored the wider impact on the community, or the life of the soldier through his friends and colleagues.

Summary:

The reporter’s decision to lie, while it achieved the immediate goal of protecting the grieving family, compromised his integrity. It also set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable when faced with ethical dilemmas.

What should have happened is that the news editor should have taken into account the reporter’s concerns, and the paper should have shown respect for the grieving family. A story that focused on the life of the soldier, and the impact on the community would have been a better way to report the story.

Journalism has a responsibility to report the truth, but it also has a responsibility to act with compassion and respect. In the pursuit of a story, ethical principles should never be sacrificed.

When analysing a “doorstepping” scenario, it’s crucial to understand that it’s a practice laden with ethical and practical complexities. It’s not simply about gathering information; it’s about the power dynamics inherent in approaching someone at their private residence. This act inherently disrupts an individual’s sense of security and control, and therefore requires a high level of consideration.

• Ethical considerations:
  • The balance between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy is paramount. Doorstepping can easily cross the line into harassment, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals or sensitive topics.
  • The potential for misrepresentation or manipulation is significant. The way questions are phrased, the tone of the interaction, and the editing of any resulting footage can all influence public perception in ways that may be unfair or inaccurate.
  • The psychological impact on the person being doorstepped must be considered. Unexpected confrontation at one’s home can cause significant distress, regardless of the individual’s perceived culpability.
• Practical implications:
  • The effectiveness of doorstepping as an information-gathering technique is debatable. While it can yield dramatic footage or sound bites, it often results in defensive or evasive responses.
  • The legal implications of doorstepping vary depending on jurisdiction and the specific circumstances. Issues such as trespass, harassment, and defamation can arise.
  • The rise of social media and rapid information sharing has changed how these interactions are perceived. Now, any interaction can be recorded by the doorstepped person and distributed to a large audience. This adds another layer of complexity to the action.
• Contextual nuances:
  • The legitimacy of doorstepping often depends on the context. Is it being used to hold powerful figures accountable, or to sensationalise a private matter?
  • The behaviour of the individual conducting the doorstepping is critical. Respectful and professional conduct can mitigate some of the ethical concerns, while aggressive or intrusive behaviour exacerbates them.
  • The public perception of the person being doorstepped plays a large role in how the action is viewed. A person viewed as already being in the wrong, will receive less public sympathy than a person viewed as an innocent party.

In essence, analysing a doorstepping scenario requires a nuanced understanding of the ethical, practical, and contextual factors at play. It’s a practice that should be approached with extreme caution and a deep respect for individual rights.

In the real-life case on which this scenario is based the family responded to the reporter’s handwritten note, invited him to visit, and shared photographs and memories of the deceased, which resulted in an exclusive feature for the local newspaper.

The post Doorstepping – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

It’s based on an article ‘Why editorial ethics are important‘ which we suggest trainers read before adapting the lesson plan for your own purposes.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate editorial decisions by applying ethical guidelines to various journalistic scenarios. They will identify potential ethical challenges and propose solutions to ensure integrity and fairness in reporting.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to assess editorial choices using ethical standards and suggest ways to handle ethical dilemmas in journalism.
• Standards: Students will learn how to navigate some of the ethical challenges they might face as they go about their work.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Begin with a brief discussion on the concept of bias in newsgathering and media production. Ask students to think about a news story they’ve recently encountered. Prompt them with questions:

• What was the main message of the story?
• Did the story seem to favour a particular viewpoint?
• Were multiple perspectives presented?

Encourage students to share their thoughts with a partner. After a few minutes, ask volunteers to share insights with the class. This will activate prior knowledge and set the stage for exploring editorial ethics.

Direct instruction

1. Conceptual understanding: Introduce the core principles of editorial ethics. Discuss key concepts such as accuracy, impartiality, and integrity. Use real-world examples to illustrate these principles. For instance, present a case where a journalist faced an ethical dilemma, such as whether to publish sensitive information. Ask students to identify the ethical considerations involved.
2. Procedural skills and fluency: Explain the process of evaluating a news story for ethical compliance. Break down the steps:
   • Identify the journalistic purpose.
   • Assess the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
   • Evaluate the thoroughness and fairness of the reporting.
3. Asking critical questions: Provide a sample news article (without revealing its source) and guide students through these steps, prompting them to ask critical questions about the article’s content and approach.
4. Application: Present a hypothetical scenario where students must make editorial decisions. For example, a story about a local protest with conflicting reports from different sources. Ask students to:
   • Determine which sources to trust and why.
   • Decide how to present the story to ensure fairness and accuracy.
   • Consider the potential consequences of their editorial choices.
5. Group discussion: Facilitate a class discussion on the decisions made and the ethical implications, encouraging students to justify their choices based on the principles discussed.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a structured discussion to apply ethical guidelines to a real-world scenario.

• Think: Present a brief news article with potential ethical issues. Ask students to individually identify and note any ethical challenges they observe, considering questions like: What is the journalistic purpose? Are diverse perspectives included? Is the reporting thorough and fair?
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their observations. Encourage them to compare notes and refine their understanding of the ethical issues present in the article.
• Share: Facilitate a class-wide discussion where pairs share their findings. Encourage students to articulate their reasoning and propose solutions to the ethical challenges identified.
• Connect: As a class, connect the discussion back to the core principles of editorial ethics. Highlight how the students’ observations align with or challenge these principles.
• Reflect: Conclude with a reflection on how applying ethical guidelines can impact journalistic integrity and public trust. Encourage students to consider how they might handle similar ethical dilemmas in their future work.

Independent practice

• Provide students with a set of brief news scenarios, each containing potential ethical dilemmas.
• Ask students to individually analyse each scenario, applying the ethical guidelines discussed in class.
• Instruct them to identify the ethical challenges, propose solutions, and justify their decisions based on the principles of editorial ethics.
• Encourage students to document their thought process and conclusions for each scenario.
• Circulate to observe and support students as needed, ensuring they are engaging critically with the material.

Assignment

Ask students these questions:

1. What is one ethical guideline you applied today, and how did it influence your decision-making?
2. Can you identify a potential consequence of not following editorial ethics in journalism?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Suggested answers:

1. Suggested answer to Question 1: I applied the guideline of ensuring diverse perspectives, which helped me present a balanced view in the scenario.
2. Suggested answer to Question 2: Not following editorial ethics can lead to biased reporting, which may mislead the public and damage trust in journalism.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by having them explore complex ethical dilemmas in journalism, such as conflicts of interest or the balance between public interest and privacy. Suggest they research real-world cases where editorial ethics were challenged and present their findings to the class.
• Striving learners: Simplify scenarios and focus on one or two key ethical principles at a time. Provide structured guidance and examples to help them identify ethical challenges. Use visual aids or graphic organisers to help them map out their thought process and ethical considerations.
• Recommended reading: This lesson plan is based on an article ‘Why editorial ethics are important‘ which we suggest you read before adapting the lesson for your own purposes.

Notable definitions

• Editorial ethics: A set of principles guiding journalists to ensure their work is fair, accurate, and impartial, avoiding bias and maintaining integrity in reporting.
• Impartiality: The practice of reporting news without favoritism or bias, ensuring all relevant perspectives are considered and presented fairly.
• Integrity: Upholding honesty and moral principles in journalism, ensuring that reporting is truthful, transparent, and free from conflicts of interest.

Required materials

• Sample news articles with potential ethical issues
• Printed copies of ethical guidelines for reference
• Whiteboard and markers for class discussions
• Projector for displaying case studies and scenarios
• Notebooks or digital devices for student reflections and notes

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

The post Lesson: Editorial Ethics first appeared on Media Helping Media.

It’s based on the article ‘Respecting privacy as a journalist‘ which is published on Media Helping Media.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate scenarios where journalistic investigation may conflict with privacy, identifying when public interest justifies privacy intrusion. They will apply ethical guidelines to determine appropriate actions in these situations.

Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to assess when it’s okay for journalists to investigate private matters if it’s considered to be important for informing the public.

Standards: Students will learn how to respect privacy while also being thorough as they investigate issues that are in the public interest.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Notice and wonder: Display a brief news clip or article headline related to a public interest story. Ask students, “What do you notice? What do you wonder?” Give them a few minutes to think and discuss with a partner. Then, have several students share their observations and questions. Record these for all to see. Guide the conversation towards questions about privacy and public interest, setting the stage for the lesson.

Direct instruction

• Introduce main concepts: Begin with a brief overview of the balance journalists must maintain between respecting privacy and serving the public interest.
• Define terms: privacy, public interest, and ethical guidelines. Use real-world examples, such as a journalist investigating corruption, to illustrate these concepts.
• Discuss ethical guidelines: Present the ethical guidelines journalists should follow when privacy and public interest conflict. Highlight the importance of fairness, respect, and transparency. Use a case study where a journalist had to decide whether to publish sensitive information. Discuss the decision-making process and the ethical considerations involved.
• Analyse scenarios: Provide students with several scenarios where journalistic investigation might intrude on privacy. For each scenario, ask students to identify the privacy concerns and evaluate whether the public interest justifies the intrusion. Encourage them to apply the ethical guidelines discussed. Facilitate a class discussion to explore different perspectives and reasoning.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share

• Think: Provide students with a scenario where a journalist must decide whether to publish a story involving private information. Ensure the scenario includes elements of public interest and potential privacy intrusion.
• Pair: Have students pair up to share their thoughts and reasoning. Encourage them to challenge each other’s perspectives and refine their arguments.
• Share: Invite pairs to share their conclusions with the class. Facilitate a discussion that highlights different viewpoints and ethical considerations.
• Reflection: Ask students to individually consider the scenario and jot down their thoughts on whether the journalist should proceed with the story. Encourage them to reference ethical guidelines discussed earlier.
• Discussion: Have students pair up to share their thoughts and reasoning. Encourage them to challenge each other’s perspectives and refine their arguments.
• Class sharing: Invite pairs to share their conclusions with the class. Facilitate a discussion that highlights different viewpoints and ethical considerations.
• Synthesise learning: Conclude by summarising the main points from the discussion, emphasising the importance of balancing privacy with public interest and adhering to ethical guidelines.

Independent practice

• Scenario analysis: Provide students with a set of scenarios where journalists face privacy vs. public interest dilemmas. Direct them to analyse each scenario independently, identifying privacy concerns and evaluating if public interest justifies intrusion. Encourage them to apply ethical guidelines discussed earlier.
• Reflection: Ask students to write a brief reflection on a scenario they analysed, focusing on their decision-making process and ethical considerations. Encourage them to consider how they would handle similar situations in real life.

Circulate to observe and support students as they work through these exercises.

Assignment

Ask students to answer these questions:

1. What is one major factor that justifies a journalist intruding on someone’s privacy?
2. How can journalists ensure they are respecting privacy while serving the public interest?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Here are some suggested answers:

• Suggested answer to Question 1: The public interest in exposing wrongdoing, such as corruption or crime.
• Suggested answer to Question 2: By following ethical guidelines, ensuring transparency, and obtaining necessary consent.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by having them research and present a case study where journalistic privacy concerns were debated. Ask them to evaluate the outcomes and propose alternative approaches.
• Striving learners: Simplify scenarios and provide structured templates to guide their analysis. Pair them with peers for collaborative discussions to build confidence and understanding.
• Background reading: This lesson plan is based on the article ‘Respecting privacy as a journalist‘ which is published on Media Helping Media. We recommend you read the article before adapting this lesson for your own purposes.

Notable definitions

• Privacy: The right of individuals to keep their personal information and activities from being disclosed to the public without their consent.
• Public interest: The welfare or well-being of the general public, often used as a justification for actions that may intrude on individual privacy if they serve a greater good.
• Ethical guidelines: A set of principles that guide journalists in making decisions that balance the need for public information with the respect for individual privacy, ensuring fairness, respect, and transparency.

Required materials

• News clip or article headline: For the warm-up activity.
• Case study materials: Real-world examples of journalistic investigations.
• Scenario handouts: Printed or digital copies of scenarios for analysis.
• Journals: Notebooks or digital platforms for student reflections.
• Whiteboard/markers: For recording observations and discussion points.
• Projector/screen: To display news clips, headlines, and key concepts.

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided Practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

Related article

Respecting privacy as a journalist

The post Lesson : Privacy first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The public interest means anything that is relevant to the lives and well-being of all of us, to society and our communities. It concerns the “common good”, meaning matters that affect our health, livelihoods, quality of life, security, and our governance.

The public interest does not mean what the public might find interesting. Broadly speaking, the difference here is between what is relevant to members of the public, as opposed to what might merely entertain, fascinate or titillate some of them.

News journalism is reporting matters of societal relevance. Not gossip and titbits about well-known figures, or about personal events and circumstances of others that do not affect broader society, but which merely pander to voyeurism. A journalist with a brief to report news should therefore apply a public interest test before deciding whether to cover a story.

In most cases it is clear what is and what is not in the public interest. But in some cases, such as stories concerning the private lives and actions of public figures in positions of power, the distinction is not clear.

The public interest is in having a safe, healthy and functional society. In a democracy, journalism plays a central role in that. It gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process. If journalists are good at their job, they hold governments and other institutions to account.

All serious journalism, then, contains a public service ethic. To fulfil this public service role, journalists must build and retain the trust of their audiences by behaving in an ethical and professional manner.

A journalist must have compelling reasons to deviate from standard good practice: if it is the only way to bring an important subject to the public’s attention.

For example, journalists should be honest about who and what they are; they should always give their names, and say for which news organisation they work.
However, there are times when a journalist might have to go undercover and hide their true identity and the real reason for their actions. Such cases could include the investigation of crime or political wrongdoing.

This is an act of deception, which is generally to be avoided, but if it brings justice and an end to criminal activity, it may be justified in the wider public interest.

Journalists should not intrude into people’s private lives – but there might be a case for doing so if the person being investigated is a public figure whose private behaviour is at odds with what they advocate in public life, especially when their position can influence legislation.

In this case, media intrusion – normally an objectionable practice – could expose hypocrisy and dishonesty. However, such intrusion must be clearly shown and clearly seen to be in the wider public interest.

Things become more difficult when the story in question may actually involve a journalist breaking the law, or encouraging someone else to do so. Here you need to have a serious discussion with colleagues about the circumstances, the public interest benefit in covering the story, the risks involved and the likely consequences.

Some countries build “the public interest” into their legal systems. So if you want to publish a difficult or controversial item because it is “in the public interest”, you should check whether the legal framework gives you the protection you need in each and every case.

In some countries, those in power might actively oppose journalists revealing information which, although in the public interest, might threaten their control of society. In such cases the public interest test takes on another meaning. How those in power define the public interest might be more about control than freedom of information. Here, extra care is required.

Some public interest justifications

If the decision is taken to publish, it is likely to be because the story would do one of these things:

• Correct a significant wrong.
• Bring to light information affecting public well-being and safety.
• Improve the public’s understanding of, and participation in, the debate about an important issue relevant to our society.
• Lead to greater accountability and transparency in public life.

None of this is easy. Journalists grapple with these issues every day. Many factors at play have not even been considered here, but if you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism.

Questions

1. What is the definition of “public interest”?
2. What is the difference between “public interest” and what the public might find interesting?
3. What role does journalism play in a democracy?
4. Why is it important for journalists to maintain ethical and professional behaviour?
5. Under what circumstances might a journalist justify going undercover?
6. What are some potential consequences of media intrusion into a public figure’s private life?
7. How should journalists handle situations where covering a story might involve breaking the law?
8. What are some reasons a story might be published in the public interest?
9. How might the definition of “public interest” differ in countries with varying legal systems?
10. What challenges do journalists face when applying the public interest test?

Answers

1. Public interest refers to anything relevant to the lives and well-being of society and communities, concerning the common good, such as health, livelihoods, quality of life, security, and governance.
2. “Public interest” is relevant to the public’s well-being, while what the public might find interesting could merely entertain or fascinate without societal relevance.
3. Journalism provides information necessary for democratic participation and holds governments and institutions accountable.
4. Ethical and professional behaviour helps journalists build and retain the trust of their audiences, fulfilling their public service role.
5. A journalist might justify going undercover if it is the only way to bring an important subject to the public’s attention, such as investigating crime or political wrongdoing.
6. Media intrusion could expose hypocrisy and dishonesty if a public figure’s private behaviour contradicts their public advocacy, but it must be justified in the wider public interest.
7. Journalists should discuss with colleagues the circumstances, public interest benefits, risks, and consequences before covering a story that might involve breaking the law.
8. A story might be published to correct a significant wrong, bring to light information affecting public well-being, improve public understanding and participation, or lead to greater accountability and transparency.
9. In some countries, the legal system incorporates “public interest,” providing protection for publishing controversial items, while in others, those in power might oppose such revelations.
10. Journalists face challenges such as determining the public interest benefit, legal implications, and ethical considerations when applying the public interest test.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: Journalism and the public interest which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

Related training module

Public interest – scenario

The post Journalism and the public interest first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario you are the editor of news website. A duty editor adds an image to a news story that you feel it is too graphic.

Overnight news breaks of fighting in a foreign land. Raw footage is filed showing dead bodies.

Your duty editor takes a screen grab from the video for an image to use at the top of the story. The image shows a dead man. His clothing is distinctive. You can see the man’s face.

The picture is dramatic but also shocking. Do you:

1. Use the image as a strong illustration of the story about what is taking place.
2. Try to find another image that is less graphic and doesn’t show the man’s face.
3. Edit out his features using a photo editor and publish.

Suggested action

It would be best to try to find another image that is less graphic and doesn’t show the man’s face.

We always need to consider carefully the editorial justification for portraying graphic material of human suffering, distress, and death.

There are almost no circumstances in which it is justified to show executions and very few circumstances in which it is justified to broadcast other scenes in which people are being killed.

We should also avoid the gratuitous use of close ups of faces and serious injuries or other violent material.

We must also be global in our news values. If we have editorial rules that state that we don’t publish details of someone who has been killed until the family has been notified, then that rule has to be applied globally.

Those in the West who apply such rules to domestic coverage need to ensure that they are consistent when dealing with tragedies in far-flung countries.

The family of a dead person, who can clearly be identified, but who is the victim of a killing thousands of miles away, are entitled to the same editorial standards we apply when the incident is on our door step.

This scenario presents a complex ethical dilemma that demands a nuanced response, going beyond a simple “right” or “wrong” answer. Let’s delve deeper into the considerations:

Understanding the core conflict:

The heart of the issue is the tension between:

• The public’s right to know vs. respect for human dignity: The public has a right to be informed about significant events, including the harsh realities of conflict. However, this right must be balanced against the fundamental respect for human dignity, particularly in death.
• The power of visuals vs. potential for harm: Graphic images can powerfully convey the gravity of a situation, but they can also cause immense distress, desensitise viewers, and potentially incite further violence.
• Global editorial standards vs. perceived distance: The principle of treating all individuals with equal respect, regardless of geographical location, is paramount. However, the perceived distance from a conflict can sometimes lead to a diminished sense of empathy and a willingness to publish more graphic content.

Analysing the options:

• Use the image as a strong illustration:
  • Potential impact: This option priorities immediacy and impact. It could draw significant attention to the conflict and potentially galvanise public action.
  • Ethical concerns: This option disregards the dignity of the deceased and the potential trauma it could inflict on viewers, particularly family and friends. It also risks violating the principle of notifying families before publishing images of the deceased. It can also cause a desensitising effect on the audience, and lower the value of human life.
• Try to find another image that is less graphic:
  • Potential impact: This option strikes a balance between informing the public and respecting human dignity. It allows for the conveyance of the severity of the situation without gratuitous violence.
  • Ethical considerations: This option acknowledges the importance of responsible reporting and minimises the potential for harm. It aligns with the principle of considering the impact on the deceased’s family.
• Edit out his features using a photo editor:
  • Potential impact: This option attempts to mitigate the graphic nature of the image while still using it.
  • Ethical considerations: This option is problematic. It is a form of manipulation that could be seen as disrespectful and deceptive. It also does not solve the core issue of showing a deceased person. Also, in the modern age, with advanced technology, it is very possible that the image could be restored, and the identity of the victim exposed.

Why option 2 Is the most ethical choice:

• Respect for human dignity: It prioritises the inherent worth of the deceased and avoids the exploitation of their image.
• Minimising harm: It recognises the potential for trauma and distress and seeks to mitigate it.
• Upholding global standards: It reinforces the principle of consistent ethical standards, regardless of geographical location.
• Maintaining credibility: Responsible reporting builds trust with the audience and enhances the credibility of the media organisation.

Adding depth and value:

• Contextualisation: Instead of relying solely on graphic images, the news organisation should provide in-depth reporting that contextualises the conflict, explaining its causes, consequences, and the human cost.
• Alternative storytelling: Employing alternative storytelling methods, such as eyewitness accounts, audio reports, and data visualisations, can effectively convey the gravity of the situation without resorting to graphic images.
• Transparency and accountability: The news organisation should be transparent about its editorial decisions and be accountable for the impact of its reporting.
• Long-term impact: The news organisation should consider the long-term impact of its reporting on the affected communities and strive to promote peace and reconciliation.
• Mental health awareness: News organisations should be aware of the mental health impact that graphic images can have on their own staff, and provide support.

In conclusion, while the desire to inform the public is essential, it must be tempered by a deep respect for human dignity and a commitment to responsible reporting. Option 2 represents the most ethical and responsible course of action, allowing the news organisation to fulfil its duty to inform while minimising harm.

The post Privacy protection – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalists face a difficult balancing act. They must respect privacy, but they must also be rigorous and robust in their investigations into issues that are in the public interest.

This means that in some cases it will be necessary for a journalist to carry out an investigation that interferes with someone’s privacy.

Such cases could include:

• crime and anti-social behaviour
• corruption or injustice
• incompetence or neglect

The most important rule is that we must treat people fairly and with respect. We must also be clear about our own motives. We must have no personal interest in an investigation that invades a person’s privacy. The only justification is that it is in the public interest and we are genuinely trying to expose wrongdoing.

What does privacy cover?

Privacy covers anything that a person might reasonably expect to keep from becoming public knowledge. It could include some facts that are known by some, but not by all. There will also be cases where a person in the public eye, who is in a public place, can expect to have their privacy protected. Such cases might be where they are in a clinic or hospital receiving treatment.

Submitted material

Increasingly, journalists are using user-generated content (UGC). This is where members of the public record video, sound or still images and either share them with media organisations, or on social media where the journalist can download and reuse the material.

This does not mean that journalists can ignore their editorial principles, and it raises important editorial issues.

For example, if material is in the public domain and everyone is talking about it yet we ignore it, we might be seen as missing out on an important element of a news story and failing to inform our users. Such situations need careful editorial consideration.

Care needs to be taken with submitted material, particularly that taken from security cameras, webcams, video cameras and mobile phones.

It’s unlikely that we will be able to verify all contributed material as being genuine. Many respected news organisations stipulate that material has to be verified by two independent sources. This might not be possible with contributed material. In that case, an editorial decision needs to be made about whether to use the material or not.

Clear labelling is a way around this if we feel that the material is justified, but we need to be careful about displaying material that could compromise our editorial values and those of the news organisation we work for.

Reliability, trust, honesty, fairness and accuracy are hard-won values and we must protect these. If your audience sees material that leads them to believe that you have moved away from such values, you might lose their trust.

Judge and jury

A journalist’s job is to report facts and inform the public debate so that people can make educated choices. We are not the judge and jury regarding what is right and wrong in the communities we serve.

Journalists have a right, and a duty, to investigate stories in the public interest, but they must not consider themselves to be beyond the law. They must also consider the hurt and damage that their digging might cause.

Some feel that an individual’s right to privacy is qualified by their behaviour. If a person is considered to be involved in crime or anti-social behaviour, it could be felt that they have given up their right to privacy because it is more likely to be in the public interest to expose their behaviour. This is not for us to decide.

This is also a delicate area. Events that might be termed by some to be anti-social or unlawful behaviour could, in some cases, be seen by others as an important and legitimate protest against unjust regimes and systems.

If we are asked to stop recording, taking photographs or jotting down notes because of concerns about privacy, we should do so unless it is editorially justified to continue. At that point we need to be absolutely clear about our reasons.

Keeping up with our competition, winning more viewers, or selling more papers are not good enough reasons. The story must inform the public debate and it must be an accurate and fair representation of the known facts.

Even then, the journalist must be sure that they have come to a considered conclusion having weighed all the facts.

Obtaining consent

There are a number of places where journalists should obtain two forms of consent, one to gather the material and the other to broadcast or publish it. These include hospitals, schools or prisons. Journalists should always seek permission from their seniors:

• to use unattended recording equipment without the knowledge of those being recorded
• to record telephone conversations originally intended for background information
• to door-step a potential interviewee without making a prior approach
• to broadcast material recorded by others, such as UGC.

Secret recording

If a journalist intends to make a secret recording, they have to be able to justify the decision on the grounds of there being a clear public interest.

It is sometimes justified if it is likely to gather evidence or behaviour that the audience would otherwise not see and hear. Justifications for secret recordings could include:

• where there is evidence that there is an intention to commit an offence
• where an open approach would be unlikely to succeed
• gathering evidence
• consumer, social or scientific research in the public interest.

In all cases, the material gathered should be a fair and accurate representation of what has happened. There is also an obligation on the journalist to seek retrospective consent and, in some cases, obscure some identities. Secret recording could include:

• the use of hidden cameras and microphones
• long-range audio-video equipment
• small video cameras
• the use of drone cameras
• mobile phone cameras
• concealed radio microphones
• phone calls
• continuing to record after the interview is over.

If you are intending to carry out a secret recording, make sure that your editor has approved it. Your news organisation will have a procedure. Ensure that you comply. It will probably involve:

• senior editorial approval and signed documents
• a clear declaration as to why the action is in the public interest
• a statement as to how the material is to be used
• an accurate log of what has taken place
• a certificate or licence if legally required
• a log of what is to be broadcast and what will not be broadcast
• an honest declaration of any deception that was required to gather the material.

That final point is extremely important. Journalists are increasingly coming under pressure not to use editing or newsgathering techniques that could be seen as misleading.

If you intend to use any material gathered secretly in the future – such as in a review of the year or referring to a story when following up the item – you will probably have to revisit the whole process, but legal advice will need to be taken.

You will need to be certain that all you propose to do is in the public interest, particularly in:

• a private place where the public does not have access
• where people are receiving medical treatment
• in cases of grief and extreme stress.

It is never justified to go on so-called fishing expeditions where secret recording is carried out on private property in search of crime or anti-social behaviour.

Similarly, you should never leave recording equipment on private property with the intention of gaining evidence of serious crime unless you have first obtained senior editorial sign-off and can justify your actions in terms of public interest.

Electronic note-taking

Many reporters use electronic equipment as part of their note-taking. Some use recorders instead of notebooks, believing it to be a better way of ensuring accuracy in their reporting.

It needs to be made clear at all times that such electronic note-taking is for research and not for broadcast. If you find you have stumbled upon a significant newsworthy clip that is clearly in the public interest to broadcast or publish you will need to discuss this with senior editors and apply the public interest test.

Door-stepping

Sometimes a reporter must be persistent in order to secure an interview. Is it really necessary? What purpose does it serve? What information is likely to be gathered that is not available through other, more conventional, channels?

A journalist has a duty to continue to question their own motives and the value of what they are doing. The general public can expect a certain amount of protection from door-stepping, however public figures, particularly politicians, fall into a different category. They expect questions being thrown at them without prior arrangement and should expect the answers to be published.

If you are convinced that the story you are chasing is in the public interest, you might want to door-step because the person involved has failed to respond to repeated interview requests. But they have a right to refuse. You also have the right to tell the public that this person refused an interview.

Tag-along scenario

A tag-along scenario is when a journalist accompanies officials carrying out their work in order to cover a story that is in the public interest. This could include going along as an observer with police, customs, immigration, or environmental health officers or other public authorities on operational duties.

But you have to be absolutely certain that there is a clear public interest, because this touches on many issues such as privacy, consent and trespass.

If you do tag along on an official visit to a private property, you must make it clear for whom you are reporting and where the material will be used, seek consent from the occupier of the property being raided, and be prepared to leave immediately if consent is refused – unless it has been agreed with your senior editors that there is a clear public interest in the event being covered.

Reporting suffering and distress

The media’s relationship with the public during times of suffering and distress is unpredictable. Journalists may often be sent out to the home of someone who has lost a loved one through criminal activity, an accident, or a bombing. There are a few common reactions.

The first is when you knock at the door and nobody answers, although you can see that there are lights on and you can hear voices. You know that people are in and you know that they don’t want to be disturbed. However, you also know that your news editor is expecting an interview with the relatives of the deceased and a picture of the person who has died.

What do you do? Do you keep knocking until they answer, or give up and head back to the office, respecting their grief and their decision to hide from you? Your news editor will either be totally supportive or will give you a hard time for not getting the interview and picture. You could write a note and put it through the door telling them why you called and why you wanted to talk to them.

The second reaction is that they open the door and set the dogs on you or give you a mouthful of abuse.

The third is that they invite you in, put the kettle on, make a cup of tea, and then show you all their family photographs and let you take some away.

You never know which reaction you will get. It is important that the reporter is sensitive to the suffering people are going through.

Intruding on private grief can hardly be in the public interest. However, here is the contradiction; the media often get criticised for covering grief, but people buy newspapers and turn on their TV expecting to see pictures of those who have died through tragic circumstances.

We can’t win, but we can be professional, consistent, and ensure that all we do is in the public interest.

Graphic material

We always need to consider carefully the editorial justification for portraying graphic material of human suffering and distress. There are no circumstances in which it is justified to show executions, and very few circumstances in which it is justified to broadcast other scenes in which people are being killed. We should also avoid the gratuitous use of close-ups of faces and serious injuries or other violent material.

We must also be global in our news values. If we have editorial rules that state that we don’t publish details of someone who has been killed until the family has been notified, then that rule has to be applied globally. Those in the West who apply such rules to domestic coverage need to ensure that they are consistent when dealing with tragedies in far-flung countries.

The family of a dead person – who can clearly be identified from still pictures or footage – but who is the victim of a killing thousands of miles away, is entitled to the same editorial standards we apply when the incident is on our doorstep.

The passage of time is an important factor when it comes to making judgments about broadcasting graphic material. In the immediate aftermath of an event, the use of more graphic material is normally justified to provide a reasonable illustration of the full horror, although a good script is equally important in conveying the reality of the tragedy.

However, as the story unfolds it may become more difficult to justify its continued use. When it comes to marking the anniversary of an event or when considering it in a contemporary historical context, it may again be editorially justified to re-use it.

We must not add to a person’s suffering and grief. We should not put them under any pressure in order to obtain an interview. We must not harass them with repeated phone calls, emails, text messages or calls at their door, we must not ignore their pleas for us to leave, and we should not follow them if they are trying to avoid/escape us.

Graphic scenes of grief are unlikely to offend or distress those victims and relatives who consented to our recording them, but we need to remember that the images could upset or anger members of the audience. It helps if we set out the context for the images people are about to see in order to prepare them and to help prevent any misunderstandings.

Funerals

Funerals, except in the case of public figures, are usually considered a private affair. We should not attend without the consent of the family. Even in the case of people in the public eye, such as politicians, entertainers and sports personalities, we should also respect a family’s wish to have a private funeral. In such cases there is usually a public event to which the media is invited and often a private event for family only.

Revisiting past events

Responsible media organisations will frequently return to past events in order to put current events in context. As a result, journalists need to ensure that they do all they can to minimise any possible distress to the surviving victims and relatives.

This is particularly important when covering suffering and trauma. This also applies even when material being published or broadcast was previously in the public domain. Where possible, surviving victims or the immediate families of the dead people who are to feature in the programme should be notified in advance.

Archive material

All news organisations use archive material in news coverage. This will include the reuse of scenes of suffering, distress and trauma. We have a duty to ensure that the repeated use of such material, particularly where it features people who can be identified and are still alive, is editorially justified.

We should never use such material to illustrate a general theme. At all times we must be sensitive to the impact such material is likely to have on those who suffered the first time round.

Missing people

The media is often called on to help trace people by broadcasting details of missing people which has been provided by relatives and friends.

We must not give over our journalism to the control of others. It could be that information the family is keen to release could be embarrassing and distressing. It could be that the information is infringing the missing person’s privacy.

We must always take editorial responsibility and consider whether the missing person would want the information published if they are found. We should also respect the fact that not every missing person wishes to be found.

Personal information

A journalist has a responsibility to be totally open and transparent with people about how they intend to use their personal information. This includes details such as telephone numbers and email addresses. We must never pass these on to others without obtaining the owner’s consent.

Questions

1. What is the primary challenge journalists face when balancing privacy and public interest in their investigations?
2. Define “privacy”. What are some examples of situations where privacy might be expected?
3. Explain the role of user-generated content (UGC) in journalism and the editorial challenges it presents.
4. Why is it important for journalists to verify contributed material, and what are some methods mentioned for verification?
5. Discuss the ethical considerations journalists must weigh when deciding to use secret recordings.
6. What are the guidelines for journalists when obtaining consent in sensitive locations such as hospitals or schools?
7. How should journalists handle situations where they are asked to stop recording due to privacy concerns?
8. Analyse the potential consequences for a journalist who fails to maintain reliability, trust, honesty, fairness, and accuracy in their reporting.
9. Evaluate the ethical implications of door-stepping in journalism. When might it be justified?
10. Sum up the considerations a journalist must take into account when reporting on suffering and distress. How can they balance public interest with respect for individuals’ privacy?

Answers

1. Journalists must balance respecting individuals’ privacy with conducting thorough investigations into matters of public interest, which may sometimes require privacy intrusion.
2. Privacy covers anything a person might reasonably expect to keep private, such as personal facts not widely known. Examples include being in a clinic or hospital receiving treatment.
3. UGC involves the public sharing media with journalists, raising issues of editorial integrity and the need to verify the authenticity of such content.
4. Verification is crucial to maintain credibility. Methods include requiring confirmation from two independent sources, though this may not always be possible with UGC.
5. Secret recordings must be justified by a clear public interest, such as gathering evidence of wrongdoing that would otherwise remain hidden.
6. Journalists should obtain consent to gather and publish material in sensitive locations, and seek permission from senior editors for certain actions.
7. Journalists should stop recording unless there is a strong editorial justification to continue, ensuring they are clear about their reasons.
8. Failing to uphold these values can lead to a loss of audience trust and damage the journalist’s and their organisation’s reputation.
9. Door-stepping may be justified if the story is in the public interest and other methods have failed, but the person involved has the right to refuse an interview.
10. Journalists must be sensitive to individuals’ suffering, ensuring their reporting is in the public interest without adding to the distress of those involved.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a Lesson plan: Respecting privacy as a journalist which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used as a basis for converting the original article into a lesson plan.

The post Respecting privacy as a journalist first appeared on Media Helping Media.