Secondaries...
And now for one of the nastiest issues raised in journalism: The right to tape.
We have this one on our backs once more after the DeFede crisis in Florida. In Florida, it is illegal to tape a conversation without consent of both parties. In some states, such as my own, it is required only to have one.
There are many reasons reporters tape conversations and many situations which a tape recorder can be used. In a face to face situation, it is less of a problem. Break out the tape recorder in plain sight of the source, which will a) let them know you're taping - say something if you feel it will make them more comfortable - and b) give them a chance to object - which as much as I hate it when a source does this, it is their right. Over the phone, it is a major concern.
Reporters will tape for a multitude of reasons, the foremost of which is probably accuracy. With a tape to back up the conversation, it is much more difficult - if not impossible - to be sued for misquoting someone. Reporters will also tape so it can be proven a source said a certain thing (an offshoot of accuracy). Some sources may find it to be a comforting precaution, many will not.
Taping inherently makes people uncomfortable, it seems. A source may be open and unconcerned if they believe they are not being taped. If they are aware, however, they may censor themselves and inhibit the conversation, restricting the quantity and quality of information a journalist has at hand. That's one reason why some journalists don't like to tell a source they're taping.
Other journalists believe that by stating who they are (a reporter) and what their purpose is (to interview the subject) they have given the source fair warning as to their intentions. Speaking to a reporter, these journalists believe, automatically should absolve them because a person speaking to a reporter should have no expectation that a reporter is not taking notes or taping the interview. Expecting privacy from a journalist is not the most unreasonable thing (if the journalist is a moral person and it is the ethical thing to do) to expect, but in most cases, that's not something a journalist should have to give.
Also, because it's not illegal in some places to tape without a source's knowledge, some journalists don't feel a moral quandary over taping, as it is their legal right... (I would be amiss to point out that some of the less conscience-driven journalists wouldn't feel bad about taping even if it were illegal, but those are a type who are unconcerned with their profession and as such should not even be in journalism and/or should be summarily fired, in my opinion).
But taping a source without their knowledge, when it is not an objective to catch them saying something they shouldn't, is something that should make a journalist uncomfortable.
That is because it suggests that the reporter does not trust the source to own up to their words. It suggests the reporter does not trust the source, and journalism is a profession infinitely based on trust. Without trust, journalism does not function, whether it be a source trusting a journalist to report and write accurately or it be the readers, who expect journalists to report the truth as fairly and honestly as they can.
While taping clandestinely may be the only thing that makes a story work (indeed there are cases where secret recordings have saved Pulitzer-prize winning stories from discrediting by lying sources who denied their statements) if it violates trust between source and journalist, it is suspect.
Journalism is purposed to be a protector of the people and of their rights. A protector does not furtively try to justify its actions and play cloak-and-dagger in the shadows.
Journalists should inform their sources that they are taping. It is the ethical and moral path in a job that depends on morals and ethics. Only if a journalist has no other way to benefit the public other than to record something clandestinely (and even not then if it is illegal, for that calls the ethics of the journalist into question) should secret recordings be used.
Only by behaving ethically can we salvage what is left of our profession at a time when the poi holloi's, the masses', trust and faith in us is at an all time low.
We have this one on our backs once more after the DeFede crisis in Florida. In Florida, it is illegal to tape a conversation without consent of both parties. In some states, such as my own, it is required only to have one.
There are many reasons reporters tape conversations and many situations which a tape recorder can be used. In a face to face situation, it is less of a problem. Break out the tape recorder in plain sight of the source, which will a) let them know you're taping - say something if you feel it will make them more comfortable - and b) give them a chance to object - which as much as I hate it when a source does this, it is their right. Over the phone, it is a major concern.
Reporters will tape for a multitude of reasons, the foremost of which is probably accuracy. With a tape to back up the conversation, it is much more difficult - if not impossible - to be sued for misquoting someone. Reporters will also tape so it can be proven a source said a certain thing (an offshoot of accuracy). Some sources may find it to be a comforting precaution, many will not.
Taping inherently makes people uncomfortable, it seems. A source may be open and unconcerned if they believe they are not being taped. If they are aware, however, they may censor themselves and inhibit the conversation, restricting the quantity and quality of information a journalist has at hand. That's one reason why some journalists don't like to tell a source they're taping.
Other journalists believe that by stating who they are (a reporter) and what their purpose is (to interview the subject) they have given the source fair warning as to their intentions. Speaking to a reporter, these journalists believe, automatically should absolve them because a person speaking to a reporter should have no expectation that a reporter is not taking notes or taping the interview. Expecting privacy from a journalist is not the most unreasonable thing (if the journalist is a moral person and it is the ethical thing to do) to expect, but in most cases, that's not something a journalist should have to give.
Also, because it's not illegal in some places to tape without a source's knowledge, some journalists don't feel a moral quandary over taping, as it is their legal right... (I would be amiss to point out that some of the less conscience-driven journalists wouldn't feel bad about taping even if it were illegal, but those are a type who are unconcerned with their profession and as such should not even be in journalism and/or should be summarily fired, in my opinion).
But taping a source without their knowledge, when it is not an objective to catch them saying something they shouldn't, is something that should make a journalist uncomfortable.
That is because it suggests that the reporter does not trust the source to own up to their words. It suggests the reporter does not trust the source, and journalism is a profession infinitely based on trust. Without trust, journalism does not function, whether it be a source trusting a journalist to report and write accurately or it be the readers, who expect journalists to report the truth as fairly and honestly as they can.
While taping clandestinely may be the only thing that makes a story work (indeed there are cases where secret recordings have saved Pulitzer-prize winning stories from discrediting by lying sources who denied their statements) if it violates trust between source and journalist, it is suspect.
Journalism is purposed to be a protector of the people and of their rights. A protector does not furtively try to justify its actions and play cloak-and-dagger in the shadows.
Journalists should inform their sources that they are taping. It is the ethical and moral path in a job that depends on morals and ethics. Only if a journalist has no other way to benefit the public other than to record something clandestinely (and even not then if it is illegal, for that calls the ethics of the journalist into question) should secret recordings be used.
Only by behaving ethically can we salvage what is left of our profession at a time when the poi holloi's, the masses', trust and faith in us is at an all time low.
posted by The Unrepentant Journalist at 7:01 PM
0 comments
