I’ve never taken a Photojournalism class, or any journalism class for that matter. That makes me admittedly a little fuzzy on the subject of ethics for reporters. PDN Pulse reports this week on a photographer getting fined $1,000.00 and possible jail time for refusing to hand over a bunch of unpublished images that are being requested as evidence in a criminal trial. It seems that there are ethics involved with the use of unpublished photos and maintaining journalistic integrity. Personally, I think that if a court orders review of unpublished material, and that review s to make a very specific determination of finding, i.e. similar to a search warrant, I’d be OK with that. If however the demand was a vague and general fishing expedition, I could definitely see some ethical concerns being raised.
This is a country of laws, when a court orders you to do something you should comply. Why does the main stream press think that they are immune to the law of the land? If they dislike a particular law they should work politically to change it. This is not to say that I cannot imagine a law so reprehensible that it should be resisited. But an order to assist a criminal investigation isn’t any where close to that point.
It is called the 1st Amendment. It’s not just what the mainstream press thinks. It is the basis for which our country was founded upon.
The problem is that it’s not all black and white when it comes to the 1st. Amendment rights and other laws including court precedents. A lot of laws conflict with each other, including laws that protect the press versus laws and legal procedures that aid criminal investigations.
Because it’s not cut and dry, these issues have to be adjudicated through are courts, including possibly the Supreme Court.
It’s a balancing act, and it always will be.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
>It is called the 1st Amendment. It’s not just what the mainstream >press thinks. It is the basis for which our country was founded upon.
Please point out to me where it says the press gets to make up it’s own laws and ignore the courts, in that amendment.
Note the reference to “abridging” freedom of press.
Perhaps you aren’t taking into account the “effect” of absolute government access to the unpublished works of journalists. If so, it is beyond me to explain that “effect” to you.
And reading the First Amendment too literally would miss the point made by Peter about the continuing “balancing act”.
Ultimately the individual photographer cannot wash his or her hands of the responsibility to judge each situation. It may sometimes be right to withhold unpublished photographs from a court. If they are your unpublished property, it’s your call. Period. Don’t depend on judges or public institutions to tell you what is right or wrong. Do that work yourself.
The first amendment “means” that the government can’t tell me what to do with my own information. If you were a reporter and you knew the goverment had absolute access to your private notes, would you *ever* do a whistleblower story about goverment waste or misconduct?
The 1st Amendment really says nothing definitive about just what ‘freedom of the press’ means in practical terms. Indeed in the context of the times it probably meant that men with sledgehammers wouldn’t be sent around by the government to smash your printing press and haul you off to jail.
So in the case of vague declarations we, in this country, look to the courts to solidify the definition. And the courts have done so, they have ruled that journalists are not immune to court orders. This has been all the way to the Supreme Court.
So if a journalist decides to defy the courts then he should expect to suffer the consequences. He is no different than that fellow who refused to testify against Barry Bonds and sat in jail for 14 months IIRC. Or that women who did years for refusing to testify against Clinton.
It seems to bare mentioning that the bill of rights *is about* limiting government’s potentially overwhelming power.
The bill of rights *is not* about giving individuals permission to do whatever they want.
Individuals are the bases for judging right and wrong. Atheists depend on themselves, and God fearing folk like me get a little help. But it is up to each of us to follow our conscience. And that might be worth more than 1000$ fine or jail time.
Society’s laws represent a compromise/majority version of right and wrong.
Society gets moral clarity from individuals who listen to their own conscience.
Whoddathunk an ethics discussion would get so lively. 🙂
Here’s my take; Published images are different than written words. There doesn’t need to be the same level of protection of sources or notes, as there are with notes or words from ‘unnamed sources’. This is because the camera is a witness to an event in away that words are not. (Let’s think strict photojournalism w/o any alteration or manipulation.) Images and video are not subject to the psychological bias or physiological shortcomings in the same way we humans mentally record events. An image from a specific place / time event gets published. WHAM! – we know a camera was there recording – something.
If a court, be it prosecution or defense, is seeking unpublished images of a very specific event, and within a specific time frame, AND are directly related to the same place / time event as the published photo, then I’m ok with the idea that ONLY those images from that event, and NOT from any other time or place, should be made available upon request of the court.
Again, the mere publication of one image points the the fact that the camera and photographer was at a certain place and at a certain time, and therefore might hold (knowinglyu or unknowingly) some information that could be helpful (or hurtful) to either side.
Finally, if there is an issue regarding source privacy has to how a photojournalist got access to a specific place/time event, then I’m sure that issue could be raised and considered within the current standard framework of the judicial system. It seems simple to me: that because of the published photo, we already know a camera was there – how it got there should be and remain a moot and privileged point.
Government
Individuals
Morals Ethics Society
Laws and Rules
Seek Balance.
(My Haiku for the day)