Is Protection of Individual Privacy Still Important?

What is more important: our right to know? or individual privacy? Can varying degrees of importance really be given to these concepts? It’s really more of a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants situation. Often an individual’s right to privacy is outweighed by the publics right to know. But how the importance is weighed differs from news outlet to news outlet; and from journalist to journalist. These are the types of things any reporter and editor must consider before running a story—a conflict between duty and humanity. As stated in Doing Ethics in Journalism journalists… are human beings… more than electronic button pushers.

As long as a breach of privacy is justifiable, many papers will print the story, while others will still choose not to. This is most visible in the case mentioned in Doing Ethics, about the accused rapist/murderer named E.B. As we see some publications such as the Jersey Journal chose to publish his name, stating that it was incomprehensible that papers would run the names of shoplifters but not of violent criminals like E.B. Other papers, like the Bergen County Record refused to publish the name while the appeal on Megan’s Law was still before the courts. There were very good reasons for following both decisions. On the one hand, E.B was a violent criminal living in somebody's neighborhood where their children may run around playing. It is important that people know what is happening in their neighborhoods. Also it may be seen as irresponsible to filter the truth. On the other hand, E.B. has done his time, had undergone therapy, and was now released, married, and ready to get on with his life. How on earth a man accused of such heinous crimes could be released is beyond me, but the law is the law. Nonetheless, I do believe in second chances and rehabilitation (it may not work all the time, but I would like to think that it is possible for a person to change). Our justice system dictates the price one must pay for his/her crimes, and once the debt has been rendered the criminal is no longer a criminal but a citizen entitled to all the same rights that other citizens are entitled to and so it seems unfair to keep dragging the man through the mud.

But there is the other side. What if the person whose identity is in question is not the criminal but, rather, the victim? Journalists were facing the same dilemma when it came to publishing the name of Kobe Bryant’s alleged victim. Newspapers traditionally do not publish the names of rape victims. Although this may be the papers policy, it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the journalists who work for the company. Back to that in a moment. Geneva Overholser, former editor of the Des Moines Register said that naming a sexual assault victim will not only help overcome the stigma of such crimes, but is a more balanced approach to reporting. It is unfair to allow people to make charges and then have us, as journalists, shield them, she argues in an article written by Joe Strupp for the Editor and Publisher in 2003.

On the other side of that argument, as put forward by Joan Ryan of the San Francisco Chronicle, is that releasing the names of rape victims does not empower, rather it would push less women to come forward out of fear that everyone will know what happened and judge her.

Both are good arguments and both can have long ranging consequences, but one thing that is certain is that we are living in a new world where journalism, thanks to the internet, is changing. The ethics that surrounded the profession are under attack as anyone can now publish anything. Lee Bailey who runs EURweb.com states that There are no standards online -- it's like the wild, wild West. EURweb.com was one of the first websites to publish the victim’s name. But other websites used that information and took it further, actually posting her name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and a link to an aerial shot over her neighborhood with a thumbtack right on her house. Perhaps that is going too far, but nonetheless it means that newspapers may need to re-examine their policies this day and age in order to remain competitive. Or perhaps the operators of these websites should practice discretion and not go to such horrid lengths to give out information whose importance to the public is still in question.

Like this article? Subscribe and get Too Real articles sent directly to your feed reader or, if that isn't your thing, rock your inbox with an email subscription.