Media Ethics and Hidden Cameras
Was the use of Hidden Cameras by the News Media Ethically Justified in the Fahey and Todd Cases? Explore Why or Why Not, Referring to Recent Cases [Jane Shannahan]
Introduction
Right to privacy became an issue in the US as far back as 1890 in words not unfamiliar to 21st century ears:
“The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery” (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, cited in Pearson, 2005, p.2).
Privacy is much more widely violated today due to technology. Ethical guidelines for journalists have not kept up with these changes, augmented by the availability of platforms on an international scale. Ward has discussed ethics issues for media which include:
“Accuracy and Verification: How much verification and context is required to publish a story? How much editing and ‘gate-keeping’ is necessary? (and) Deception and Fabrication: Should journalists misrepresent themselves or use recording technology, such as hidden cameras, to get a story? Should literary journalists invent dialogue or create composite ‘characters’?” (Ward, 2009, p.296).
The two cases discussed here came to light via covert recordings made of high profile members of the New Zealand community, namely the sexual allegations against Dr Morgan Fahey and the exposure of the sex and drug life of international eventer, Mark Todd. The proceeds of the recordings were made public. This case study will compare the cases to determine whether the intrusions were ethically justified.
In 1998, TV3 alleged in its 20/20 programme that Dr Morgan Fahey had been sexually abusing patients. A second show featured a meeting between ex-patient Brenda and Fahey in his surgery that Brenda filmed via a secret handbag camera. Fahey’s lawyers tried to prevent the secret footage being transmitted but the injunction was overturned
Introduction
Right to privacy became an issue in the US as far back as 1890 in words not unfamiliar to 21st century ears:
“The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery” (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, cited in Pearson, 2005, p.2).
Privacy is much more widely violated today due to technology. Ethical guidelines for journalists have not kept up with these changes, augmented by the availability of platforms on an international scale. Ward has discussed ethics issues for media which include:
“Accuracy and Verification: How much verification and context is required to publish a story? How much editing and ‘gate-keeping’ is necessary? (and) Deception and Fabrication: Should journalists misrepresent themselves or use recording technology, such as hidden cameras, to get a story? Should literary journalists invent dialogue or create composite ‘characters’?” (Ward, 2009, p.296).
The two cases discussed here came to light via covert recordings made of high profile members of the New Zealand community, namely the sexual allegations against Dr Morgan Fahey and the exposure of the sex and drug life of international eventer, Mark Todd. The proceeds of the recordings were made public. This case study will compare the cases to determine whether the intrusions were ethically justified.
In 1998, TV3 alleged in its 20/20 programme that Dr Morgan Fahey had been sexually abusing patients. A second show featured a meeting between ex-patient Brenda and Fahey in his surgery that Brenda filmed via a secret handbag camera. Fahey’s lawyers tried to prevent the secret footage being transmitted but the injunction was overturned
References: Bernstein, C. (1992). The idiot culture. The New Republic, 8, 22-28. Berry, D. (2009). Journalism, ethics and society. UK: Ashgate. Bok, S. (1982). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. NY: Pantheon. BSA. (2000). Decision Nos 200-108-1113 (10.8.00). In the matter of complaints by W.DeHart, L.Cameron and P. & P. Cotter. A full copy of this Decision is available at www.bsa.govt.nz. Burns, L.S. (2002). Understanding journalism. London: Routledge. Cheng, D. (2011, September 30). Spy-cam ruling a hurdle for SIS. NZ Herald. Downloaded from http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/search/doc_view.php?d65=nzh02/text/2011/09/30/NZH-sis30.html on 7 October 2011. Christians, C. G., & Cooper, T.W. (2009). The search for universals. In L.Wilkins & C. G. Christians, (Eds.), The handbook of mass media ethics (pp. 55–68). New York, NY: Routledge. Cupples, J., & Harrison, J. (2001). Disruptive voices and boundaries of respectability in Christchurch, New Zealand. Gender, Place and Culture, 8(2), 189–204. Goddard, P. (2006). Improper liberties: Regulating undercover journalism on ITV 1967–1980. Journalism, 7(1), 45-63. Grunwell, R. (2010, May 16). Politician 's hidden camera sex scandal. NZ Herald. Downloaded from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10645290 on 10 October 2011. Halliday, J. (2010, October 28). Google Street View: information commissioner shackled by Data Protection Act. Guardian. Downloaded from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/28/google-street-view-information-commissioner on 2 November 2011. Hersckovitz, H. (2005). Media roles and ethics: Perceptions of Brazilian, American and French journalists. Brazilian Journalism Research, 1 (1), 87–109. Horwood, A., & Corbett, J. (2000, June 2). Fahey - sexual predator in a white coat. NZ Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=138943 downloaded on 28 October 2011. Hughes, G. (2003). Mark Todd’s 100 days. In: Looking for trouble: Behind the scenes of the New Zealand media, (pp. 146-170). Auckland: Harper Collins. Kieran, M.D., Morrison, D.E., & Svennevig, M. (2000). Privacy, the public and journalism: Towards an analytical framework. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 1(2), 145-169. Langwell, R. (2000, n.d.). A story well told. North & South. Morrison, D.E., & Svennevig, M. (2007). The defence of public interest and the intrusion of privacy. Journalism, 8(1), 44-65. Pearson, M. (2005). The privacy mandala: Towards a newsroom checklist for ethical decisions. Downloaded from http://epublications.bond.edu.au on 1 November 2011. Rasmussen, W. (2011, September 24). Media the loser in Tindall story. Manawatu Standard. Downloaded from http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/5677870/Media-the-loser-in-Tindall-story on 26 September 2011. Rayner, G Ringley, J. (n.d.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley, downloaded 2 November, 2011. Sanders, K. (2003). Private lives and public interest. Ethics & Journalism, (pp.77-92. London: Sage Publications. Todd accused, (2000, June 19). Dominion, n.p.n. Todd owes us all an explanation, (2000, June 21). NZ Herald, n.p.n.. Unmasking Dr Fahey, (2000, June, 2). NZ Herald, n.p.n. Ward, S.J.A. (2009). Journalism ethics. In: Wahl-Jorgensen K and Hanitzsch T (eds) The handbook of journalism studies. New York: Routledge, 295–309. Warren, S., & Brandeis, L. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220. Wilkins, L. & and Coleman, R. (2005). Moral Development: In Their Own Words, Thinking about Hidden Cameras: Legality, Role, and Ends. In The moral media: How journalists reason about ethics, Ch.4. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wycherley, G. (2002, October 10). Film maker will fight minister’s decision. NZ Herald. Downloaded from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2998665 on 17 October 2011.