To what degree should journalists protect individual privacy?
Last year, a journalist from the British newspaper, The Guardian broke a story on the prevalence of phone tapping among reporters working for a popular British tabloid. It has since been suggested that the practice was common knowledge among both editors and journalists at The News of the World.
In a recent debate in London, Nick Davies, the author of the story said that phone-tapping is increasingly common due to shifting technology and pressure from newsrooms.
Some news organizations argue that media intrusion into the private lives of citizens is justified if it falls under the public interest. But private individuals targeted by such stories maintain that journalists are abusing the privilege, and placing “gossip” in this category instead.
Do you support reporters using phone-tapping in certain cases? Where do you think working for the public interest ends, and breaking the law begins?
What was the question? Do
What was the question? Do reporters support reporters wire tapping? and the 2nd). Where does working for public interest ends and breaking the law begins. Go to the facts. Wire tapping is illegal. Tabloids are gossip. Human interest for a tabloid is gossip. Breaking the law for gossip? Journalists should remain professional, especially with the dangers and loss of esteem in the professional reputation as a whole. Being professional for a story does not break the law with wire tapping.
True, it must be discouraged
True, it must be discouraged
Tapping of citizens' phones
Tapping of citizens' phones does not only intrude on victims' privacy, in many civilized places where freedom is respected and guaranteed, it is a crime. Nothing excuses a journalist to commit a crime in the pursuit of a story. He becomes, himself, a criminal. Whatever information so obtained through this method becomes "tainted" and less credible because of the dubious way it was obtained. Editors should discourage it whereever it exists.
Post new comment