Thoughts: Privacy and the Journalist: Some Special Problem Areas in "Ethics In Media Communications"
I think the easiest to decide concerning these "special problem areas" is the first one listed. I think 'contagious diseases and disabilities' should only be told if it's actually relevant to the story. If the story could have also easily happened to another person without such disease or disability, then there's no need to identify those problems. Otherwise, a reported mind as well list the extent of extroversion contributing to one's communication, eye color and other facts that may be true but aren't necessary for any individual they write about. If there is relevance, then permission to be identified in a story should be obtained.
Identifying the sexual orientation of someone in a news story is currently a topic that can strike sparks. Generally, reporters would not go around saying, "Jane Smith, who is a heterosexual..." and therefore I do not think it's necessary to proclaim any other sexual orientations. I would feel obliged to say something only if it is relevant (after all, I wouldn't be making a story about "John Smith, is now attending his 1275th class..."). If somehow the story is made clearer by telling the audience that someone was of a certain sexual orientation, then I would do so. Otherwise, I do not feel it necessary to call anyone anything. Being "straight", "gay", "bisexual", "asexual" or whatever is not a crime so I also do not see a reason to reveal names in the reverse situation (of when a story is related to sexual orientation). It is not upcon to me to purposefully perpetuate or eliminate a stigma; my primary concerns are to be fair to any human being.
Sex crimes is by far the topic that troubles me the most. To be honest, if I were a rape victim I highly doubt I would want my name to be published. My friends and family--those in my social networks--could get hold of such news and they would forever treat me differently. Obviously, my life would be altered too but I am not sure if I want so many people changing their treatment of me if I had been raped. Since I tend to think that most rape victims would feel similarly negatively about making their names publicized, I am leaning towards not having these names published. However, I also understand that this kind of silence has also been lending itself to making rape victims feel shame, and that it is not fair when in other crimes the accused are also identified with the accusers. And so my conclusion has to take into consideration both sides. I think that as a reporter, my duty would be to properly inform the reader. As such I should include as much information as I can about what actually happened: what time and where did this crime occur, perhaps a little background history, etc. I would hope that I can do enough research and write it accurately so that readers can see and decide for themselves if what happened was truly out of the victim's hands or not.
I was surprised about reading the "Juvenile Offenders" section, partly because I am not all the clear on the laws concerning juvenile offenses. I recognize that the "youth" of today have been forced to "grow up" much faster than the "age of innocence" once held in generations before. If 9-year-old fashion models have no problem releasing their names (probably as part of their publicity stint) then why not young criminals? Granted, I think that youths under the age of 13 are still incredibly impressionable but also can hold onto incredibly strong convictions (whether it is a modeling career or an act of vengeance). However, I think after the age of 13 kids start maturing and learn from their past mistakes to discern what was wrong and what was right. Anyone who can go through that decision process can be tried after convicting a crime, since that is the basis of putting adults on trial (though not everyone fits the bill exactly as an 'adult' or 'child'). I don't see a reason why names should be withheld. "Children" are no longer under the age of 16. "Young adults" have been expected to make such decisions, so it's pointless to keep regarding them with rules that should no longer apply.
Using children for sources is a danger zones. If adults can be easily mislead by how a person phrases a question, I expect children to be even more gullible. Even asking yes-no questions may not avoid problems. (By 'children', I still am going with those under the age of 13.) If they were the only witnesses of something, then I suggest asking them questions in such a way that they do not feel threatened. Perhaps they could initially be exposed to an interrogation by having a neutral guardian or friend accompany them in front of a non-intimidating setting and panel. Once they get used to the idea of truthfully answering questions, then the person accompanying them should leave and then 2 or 3 people can stay to ask this child questions. I hope that in this way harming the child and getting incorrect information are both minimized.
Identifying the sexual orientation of someone in a news story is currently a topic that can strike sparks. Generally, reporters would not go around saying, "Jane Smith, who is a heterosexual..." and therefore I do not think it's necessary to proclaim any other sexual orientations. I would feel obliged to say something only if it is relevant (after all, I wouldn't be making a story about "John Smith, is now attending his 1275th class..."). If somehow the story is made clearer by telling the audience that someone was of a certain sexual orientation, then I would do so. Otherwise, I do not feel it necessary to call anyone anything. Being "straight", "gay", "bisexual", "asexual" or whatever is not a crime so I also do not see a reason to reveal names in the reverse situation (of when a story is related to sexual orientation). It is not upcon to me to purposefully perpetuate or eliminate a stigma; my primary concerns are to be fair to any human being.
Sex crimes is by far the topic that troubles me the most. To be honest, if I were a rape victim I highly doubt I would want my name to be published. My friends and family--those in my social networks--could get hold of such news and they would forever treat me differently. Obviously, my life would be altered too but I am not sure if I want so many people changing their treatment of me if I had been raped. Since I tend to think that most rape victims would feel similarly negatively about making their names publicized, I am leaning towards not having these names published. However, I also understand that this kind of silence has also been lending itself to making rape victims feel shame, and that it is not fair when in other crimes the accused are also identified with the accusers. And so my conclusion has to take into consideration both sides. I think that as a reporter, my duty would be to properly inform the reader. As such I should include as much information as I can about what actually happened: what time and where did this crime occur, perhaps a little background history, etc. I would hope that I can do enough research and write it accurately so that readers can see and decide for themselves if what happened was truly out of the victim's hands or not.
I was surprised about reading the "Juvenile Offenders" section, partly because I am not all the clear on the laws concerning juvenile offenses. I recognize that the "youth" of today have been forced to "grow up" much faster than the "age of innocence" once held in generations before. If 9-year-old fashion models have no problem releasing their names (probably as part of their publicity stint) then why not young criminals? Granted, I think that youths under the age of 13 are still incredibly impressionable but also can hold onto incredibly strong convictions (whether it is a modeling career or an act of vengeance). However, I think after the age of 13 kids start maturing and learn from their past mistakes to discern what was wrong and what was right. Anyone who can go through that decision process can be tried after convicting a crime, since that is the basis of putting adults on trial (though not everyone fits the bill exactly as an 'adult' or 'child'). I don't see a reason why names should be withheld. "Children" are no longer under the age of 16. "Young adults" have been expected to make such decisions, so it's pointless to keep regarding them with rules that should no longer apply.
Using children for sources is a danger zones. If adults can be easily mislead by how a person phrases a question, I expect children to be even more gullible. Even asking yes-no questions may not avoid problems. (By 'children', I still am going with those under the age of 13.) If they were the only witnesses of something, then I suggest asking them questions in such a way that they do not feel threatened. Perhaps they could initially be exposed to an interrogation by having a neutral guardian or friend accompany them in front of a non-intimidating setting and panel. Once they get used to the idea of truthfully answering questions, then the person accompanying them should leave and then 2 or 3 people can stay to ask this child questions. I hope that in this way harming the child and getting incorrect information are both minimized.