The Use of Deception by Journalists in Gathering Information

Introduction

Though the provisions of First Amendment advocate for the freedom of the press, it also requires that the privacy rights of individuals be protected in the process of gathering information for public consumption (Emerson, 2016).

The Sullivan vs. New York Times Case

Considering the case of Sullivan (the plaintiff) vs. New York Times (the defendant). The appellant had sued the defendant for the invasion of privacy rights by publishing information without his consent. The district court decided that the New York Times had trespassed its limit of the provided freedom, and, therefore, Sullivan should be provided with apology and compensation. In this regard, it is justifiable that it is never ethically correct for a journalist to use deception, particularly relating to the use of hidden cameras or eavesdropping devices, in gathering information for the news story.

Ethical Implications of Deceptive Information Gathering

The use of deception by the journalist to collect information is an unethical behavior in the sense that serve to undermine the public confidence in the integrity of news gathering process. As a result, the population of the audience for the particular media outlet whose journalist is determined to be indulging in this unethical behavior of using deception to gather news is likely to reduce. The use of deception is an indication that the journalists do not consider such alternatives as guaranteeing public safety to the persons who may otherwise reveal sensitive information (Emerson, 2016). In this regard, the journalists resort to using either hidden cameras or eavesdropping devices to gather news from reluctant sources who are sometimes unwilling to provide a much needed and important information due to fear of personal safety. However, in this case, the end must never justify the means, because even though the information collected may be useful, the use of deception without the self-awareness of the information is wrong, and this makes the makes the entire newsgathering process unethical.

Balancing Journalists’ Freedom and Privacy Rights

Yes, it is inarguable that the journalists are provided with the constitutional freedom to collect a wide range of information for reporting, however, this does not mean that their freedom should infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, as argued by Dominick (2012), it is imperative that when seeking to gather information that specifically concerns private issues, the journalist must seek the prior consent of the individual. In cases that an individual may wish for the protection of his or her privacy, the deception should not be used to gather information. The journalist must never collect private information without seeking for the preliminary approval of the person that the information is related (Walsh, Selby, & Schaffer, 2015). The situation is a case of delicate balance because implies to the use media freedom while protecting the personal right to privacy by the public. In other words, it is unacceptable that the process of journalists exercising the freedom vested upon them by the First Amendment to collect information that they so wish should mean that the right of privacy is invaded.

Establishing Laws for Media and Privacy

According to Walsh, Selby, & Schaffer (2015), the freedom of the media is only legal in as far as the individual rights to privacy is taken into account. It can, thus, be argued that this freedom is not unilaterally free in its entirety because there are some bilateral issues to be considered, specifically the protection of privacy rights. It is, therefore, necessary that stronger laws regarding the behavior of photographers and journalists in gathering information be established. These laws should be established to ensure that the freedom of the media operates within the confines of ensuring that it does exceeds its constitutional mandate of trespassing the right to privacy. Nevertheless, the laws should not be tailored towards gagging the operations of the journalists and photographers but rather ensure that there is a fair balance between the press freedom and privacy rights, so that both parties’ rights are protected.

References

Dominick, J. R. (2012). Dynamics of Mass Communication: Media in Transition (12th Edition). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Emerson, T. I. (2016). The freedom of information act 1966–2016: The right of privacy and freedom of the press. Communication law and policy, 11(4), 511-564.

Walsh, J. J., Selby, S. J., & Schaffer, J. L. (2015). Media Misbehavior: The Constitutionality of Consequential Damages for Publication of Gotten Information. Human communication research, 28(2), 213-228.