Berl Falbaum
When, if ever, is it permissible for a news reporter to engage in unethical means to obtain a story?
That is the bottom-line question raised by the controversy over one, Lauren Windsor, posing as a Catholic conservative while secretly recording Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito at a gala recently sponsored by the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Windsor’s recording made headlines when she “caught” Alito, after being goaded by her, agreeing that the country needs to return to a “place of godliness.”
For this column, we’ll put aside the question whether that comment deserved the massive coverage it received because it lacks any context. We really have no idea what Alito meant. We’ll also skip the legality of the taping because that issue is very complex with various states dealing with it differently nor are we addressing Alito’s alleged unethical conduct in accepting gifts or his political conflicts of interest given his wife’s “political” activism.
We are only examining the issue of ethics in journalism.
The answer to the question posed at the top of this column is a resounding “no.” I can’t be any stronger. It is never permissible for reporters to misrepresent themselves or to record and/or photograph people without their permission. End of story.
I’ll skip the comments from those who agree with my position and just focus on those that defend Windsor, who is described as a “documentarian.” We’ll begin with the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).
It stipulates that news people “should avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”
I taught journalism ethics at Wayne State University for decades and always marveled at that “ethical” edict. I still can’t believe someone really wrote that and it’s been on the books for years. In effect, it says it’s wrong to steal unless you can’t get the money you need any other way.
Who decides what’s “vital to the public? A documentarian seeking publicity? A publisher losing subscriptions? A reporter pressing his editors for a raise or promotion?
Parker Molloy, in her newsletter The Present Age, summaries the Windsor defense cited by many, writing, “Ultimately, the public interest should be the guiding principles in journalism. Regardless of how they are obtained, Lauren Windsor’s recordings shed light on the beliefs of a Supreme Court justice — information that the public has a right to know.”
Regardless of how the information was obtained? Would Molloy support Windsor breaking into Alito’s office and rummaging through his files? Would she approve of wiretapping the justice’s office? If not, what is the difference with wiretapping his office and secretly recording him at the dinner?
Indeed, two local reporters, in a book on investigative reporting published in the 1970s, recommended bugging the offices of public officials, of course, to serve the public interest.
I still remember their suggestion of dropping a small mic that looks like a cockroach on the rug while the reporter is in the mayor’s office. I think that meets the SPJ code.
What are the limits — are there any — for Molloy, Windsor and the others who defend misrepresentation and secret recordings?
As a society, we don’t even permit law enforcement agencies to wiretap without having probable cause or approval from a court.
I think it would be more in the public interest to rid us of organized crime figures, murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc. with secret recordings than garner a one-sentence quote from a Supreme court justice. Yet, we forbid it because of a commitment to protecting civil liberties, privacy and possible abuse.
Moreover, government agencies can be held accountable for unethical practices such as wiretapping while Windsor escapes any accountability as do all those who published her “exclusive.” They too compromised journalistic ethics and gave her the publicity she craved.
It is also vital to understand the First Amendment (freedom of the press) is not restricted to The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC or other major media outlets. It even protects someone who publishes a small newsletter in a residential subdivision. Thus, under Windsor’s warped understanding of media ethics, in effect, anyone can wiretap public officials if they consider it in the public interest.
Other important factors to note:
• Windsor has not made the full recording public. Might there be something on it that gives us more information, that puts the conversation in context? Some skepticism is warranted given that Windsor already has engaged in unethical conduct.
• She admits she lied but “for the greater good.” I guess we should all feel indebted to her.
• Alito did not actually say the country needs to return to a “place of godliness.” Windsor said it and he responded, “I agree with you.” Might he just have been courteous?
• Another fair question: Is it really about the public interest or increasing traffic and the number of likes on websites?
Sadly, the media continues to lose the trust of the public which questions their accuracy, fairness and commitment to unbiased reporting. Poll after poll reveals a growing lack of respect which is hardly healthy for a democracy that needs a vibrant press dedicated to the highest principles of truth and honesty.
Surreptitious and underhanded behavior on the part of the media does not help in restoring public confidence in the press. Defending unsavory behavior only adds to the public’s distrust.
Given this brouhaha, consider how Windsor and her defenders might instruct their children on ethics: Never lie or cheat unless you cannot get what you want any other way.
That is the bottom-line question raised by the controversy over one, Lauren Windsor, posing as a Catholic conservative while secretly recording Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito at a gala recently sponsored by the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Windsor’s recording made headlines when she “caught” Alito, after being goaded by her, agreeing that the country needs to return to a “place of godliness.”
For this column, we’ll put aside the question whether that comment deserved the massive coverage it received because it lacks any context. We really have no idea what Alito meant. We’ll also skip the legality of the taping because that issue is very complex with various states dealing with it differently nor are we addressing Alito’s alleged unethical conduct in accepting gifts or his political conflicts of interest given his wife’s “political” activism.
We are only examining the issue of ethics in journalism.
The answer to the question posed at the top of this column is a resounding “no.” I can’t be any stronger. It is never permissible for reporters to misrepresent themselves or to record and/or photograph people without their permission. End of story.
I’ll skip the comments from those who agree with my position and just focus on those that defend Windsor, who is described as a “documentarian.” We’ll begin with the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).
It stipulates that news people “should avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”
I taught journalism ethics at Wayne State University for decades and always marveled at that “ethical” edict. I still can’t believe someone really wrote that and it’s been on the books for years. In effect, it says it’s wrong to steal unless you can’t get the money you need any other way.
Who decides what’s “vital to the public? A documentarian seeking publicity? A publisher losing subscriptions? A reporter pressing his editors for a raise or promotion?
Parker Molloy, in her newsletter The Present Age, summaries the Windsor defense cited by many, writing, “Ultimately, the public interest should be the guiding principles in journalism. Regardless of how they are obtained, Lauren Windsor’s recordings shed light on the beliefs of a Supreme Court justice — information that the public has a right to know.”
Regardless of how the information was obtained? Would Molloy support Windsor breaking into Alito’s office and rummaging through his files? Would she approve of wiretapping the justice’s office? If not, what is the difference with wiretapping his office and secretly recording him at the dinner?
Indeed, two local reporters, in a book on investigative reporting published in the 1970s, recommended bugging the offices of public officials, of course, to serve the public interest.
I still remember their suggestion of dropping a small mic that looks like a cockroach on the rug while the reporter is in the mayor’s office. I think that meets the SPJ code.
What are the limits — are there any — for Molloy, Windsor and the others who defend misrepresentation and secret recordings?
As a society, we don’t even permit law enforcement agencies to wiretap without having probable cause or approval from a court.
I think it would be more in the public interest to rid us of organized crime figures, murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc. with secret recordings than garner a one-sentence quote from a Supreme court justice. Yet, we forbid it because of a commitment to protecting civil liberties, privacy and possible abuse.
Moreover, government agencies can be held accountable for unethical practices such as wiretapping while Windsor escapes any accountability as do all those who published her “exclusive.” They too compromised journalistic ethics and gave her the publicity she craved.
It is also vital to understand the First Amendment (freedom of the press) is not restricted to The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC or other major media outlets. It even protects someone who publishes a small newsletter in a residential subdivision. Thus, under Windsor’s warped understanding of media ethics, in effect, anyone can wiretap public officials if they consider it in the public interest.
Other important factors to note:
• Windsor has not made the full recording public. Might there be something on it that gives us more information, that puts the conversation in context? Some skepticism is warranted given that Windsor already has engaged in unethical conduct.
• She admits she lied but “for the greater good.” I guess we should all feel indebted to her.
• Alito did not actually say the country needs to return to a “place of godliness.” Windsor said it and he responded, “I agree with you.” Might he just have been courteous?
• Another fair question: Is it really about the public interest or increasing traffic and the number of likes on websites?
Sadly, the media continues to lose the trust of the public which questions their accuracy, fairness and commitment to unbiased reporting. Poll after poll reveals a growing lack of respect which is hardly healthy for a democracy that needs a vibrant press dedicated to the highest principles of truth and honesty.
Surreptitious and underhanded behavior on the part of the media does not help in restoring public confidence in the press. Defending unsavory behavior only adds to the public’s distrust.
Given this brouhaha, consider how Windsor and her defenders might instruct their children on ethics: Never lie or cheat unless you cannot get what you want any other way.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
