Would Joe Saltzman approve of the reporting in the situation
described in the link below? Why or why not (draw on the assigned
chapter for your answer)?
Your response is due Monday, Oct. 15, by 4 p.m. No exceptions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/panorama-care-home-investigation-undercover-journalism
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
21 comments:
According to Joe Saltzman, undercover reporting methods may only be used in situations where the public has a right to know. In reference to Mr. Deeds, a film’s depiction of undercover reporting for juicy gossip, Saltzman states that the actions of Babe Bennett were seen as unethical. According to Saltzman, “This is not a story involving national security, unsafe conditions in a hospital or insane asylum, corrupt business practices, or any other problem affecting the public welfare,” (68). Journalists may use undercover reporting as a method to get a story if it pertains to these issues. In reference to the article, “Panorama’s care home investigation shows need for undercover journalism,” Saltzman would agree that the actions of the journalist were acceptable and ethical. The reporter’s methods were used to expose the mistreatment of young patients at a private hospital. Although the reporter used deception as a technique in reporting, their actions were seen as important to the public welfare. In contrast, the film Mr. Deeds offers a different outcome in investigative reporting. As Saltzman suggested, “It is undercover reporting that serves no public interest, just gossip and entertainment,” (68). As journalist, we are to make ethical decisions based on the public’s need to know versus want to know. Although entertainment news might serve as a means of amusement, it doesn’t serve as an acceptable ethical reason for using undercover reporting. Saltzman would argue that such methods should only be based on the public’s need to know. He also cites the Society of Professional Journalism in order to make a clear line of when deception may be used by a reporter. As stated, deception may be used if it is of “vital public interest” and reveals “‘system failures’ at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals,” (69).
Under cover reporting is very hard to do. To do this kind of reporting the reporter has to dress up and pretend to be someone he is not. Under cover reporting is usually done when journalists feel that people or animals are being treated unfair.
The article explains about a time when a reporter went under cover and exposed the horrors of a private hospital. The staff members were abusing their patients. A journalist pretended to be a staff member and watched what when on.
"It seems likely to lead to long overdue change and protection for people. Who cannot defend themselves." This shows that the article agrees with under cover reporting and feels it needs to be done to protect others.
Joe Saltzman feels that under cover reporting should only be done in extreme cases. He feels this kind of reporting is deceiving. "And deceptive behavior is in direct conflict with the journalist's obligation to be accurate and fair, to try to tell the truth as the facts dictate" 59.
The role of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it no matter how bad the truth may be. A journalist cannot be bias, so by going under cover one can argue that now the reporter is taking someone's side. "On the other hand, under cover reporting amounts to unethical behavior" 69.
Sources will speak openly to someone if he is under cover. People get scared when a reporter is interviewing them and they will watch what they say.
"Under cover reporting usually results in high-profile stories the public loves" 69.
To do under cover reporting, Saltzman says that there has to be a threat to individuals and it should only occur if all other measures have been taken. Also, only when there is public interest for people in harm.
I like the statement, "Ethicists believe that the "Fundamental question is whether deception is the best way to get the story. I agree with it because sometimes the only way to open or breaks story is to go under cover. By doing this journalists may be helping people or even saving someone's life.
"The future of this kind of investigative reporting, the last resort of the crusading journalist and the last hope for the public's right to know, could fade if under cover journalism is rejected completely" 71.
I believe Saltzman would agree that the deplorable conditions at Winterbourne View were certainly worthy of investigation by (admittedly ethically dubious) undercover journalism. One of Saltzman's very last points is that undercover journalism has exposed "massive corruption" in the past, and that undercover journalism was "the only way to discover and report on these stories" (70). Those assertions definitely apply to the Winterbourne View case--there was clear corruption and abuse of power being reported by and testified to by multiple sources, and with it being ignored and dismissed by everyone whose attention it was brought to, undercover journalism was absolutely necessary in bringing this case to the public's attention.
This was not a trivial celebrity story like the Mr. Deeds movies portray. This was a case where, like the SPJ Code says, there was "great 'system failure'" and where "profound harm" was being done to individuals (69). The article states that arrests were made, that those nurses and caregivers who were practicing violence against the residents were caught; I believe that alone justifies the deceptive nature of the journalism. The harm being done to these individuals was stopped and, not only that, exposed to a public that was outraged and has the ability to call for reform in louder and more organized ways that a sole whistleblower such as Terry Bryan. If the abused individuals are now safe and their abusers have been properly punished for their crimes, who are we to say the journalist was wrong? Would we have rathered helpless individuals such as Simone continue to be hurt, with no recourse for help? I believe that in this case, the need for exposure and the right for the affected individuals to feel safe outweighed the need for truthfulness from the reporter.
I believe that Saltzman would approve of the undercover reporting done at Winterbourne View. While Saltzman states that, “undercover reporting amounts to unethical behavior - deceiving people who think they can freely talk to you because you are not a reporter who will tattle on them” (p.69), he also states that, “there are stories important to public welfare that cannot be reported in any other way” (p.69). Therefore, after reading about how the patients were being abused and complaints by patients and some workers were being ignored, I believe that Saltzman would agree with the reporter going undercover. Without using undercover journalism, this case would have continued to be ignored and patients would still be treated terribly.
This story is very unlike the Mr. Deeds story Saltzman discusses in his chapter. The undercover reporting in that situation was for a celebrity piece, not because anyone was at risk of being in danger. In the Mr. Deeds situation, Saltzman states,”…the primary purpose of stunt journalism was to scoop the competition by printing an exclusive story that no one else in town knew anything about”(p.64). There is a great difference between these two situations, and I think that Saltzman would understand why undercover journalism was necessary in the case of the treatment of patients at Winterbourne View
I think that Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting done in the article. He says on (pg. 59) that undercover journalism should be avoided unless in extreme cases, which was described in the article about patients at Winterbourne View, a private hospital near Bristol, where young vulnerable people were abused by the staff. Although Saltzman says that "deceptive behavior is in direct conflict with the journalist's ablation to be accurate and fair," he also says that if there is wrong doing going on and it is hurting people then the ends have to justify the means. Like in the Mr. Deeds story Saltzman doesn't think that, that sort of undercover journalism is needed, he says, " This is not a story involving national security, UNSAFE CONDITIONS IN A HOSPITAL or insane asylum, corrupt business practices or any other problem affecting the public welfare."(pg. 68) He even says in the above quote that the undercover journalism was ok in the case of the people getting abused in the hospital, but like in the Mr. Deeds case it is just for public interest so people have something to talk about not to open eyes and try and safe people from wrong doing.
Both Maggie Brown who reported the article and Joe Saltzman comment on the extreme nature and risk of undercover reporting and, thus, see it as a tool that can only be used in extreme cases, however I think both would agree that in this example undercover reporting was necessary. Because abuse had been reported before both by staff and the patients with no action taken undercover journalism was a necessary tool to bring about constructive change and justice to the victims in this situation. Although Saltzman finds undercover reporting to bring about unethical information he also recognizes that sometimes it is important to get the full story. Furthermore, Saltzman identifies unsafe conditions in a hospital as one of the situations in which undercover reporting is a suitable option. In the case reported in the article abusive staff members in a hospital for young people were exposed, and this most definitely falls under the criteria of unsafe conditions.
Ultimately I agree with Saltzman and the work of the undercover reporter Joe Casey's decision to investigate this case. In many situations a journalist will face undercover reporting is not a viable option. It is unethical to portray yourself to those who you wish to get information from as anything other than a journalist. It can cause serious damage to the reputation of an individual or organization, but in situations such as this where people's lives are in danger (both those already in the hospital and those who may enter in the future) it is imperative to get the whole story and is a NEED TO KNOWN for the public.
Undercover journalism is ethically questionable and there is margin for error and controversy because in essence, the news source is lying to retrieve the story. However, if the positive outweighs the negative and it is in the best interest of the public to go under cover to report, then it is acceptable in most cases. As stated in The Guardian's article, "undercover reporting needs to be deployed when nothing else can be substituted, and when the public interest in exposing wrongdoing is paramount." The people in the hospital who were being mistreated couldn't help nor speak for themselves. The ends justify the means; Joe Saltzman would approve. In Saltzman's chapter on page 69 he quotes the SPJ code of ethics regarding when deception in journalism is justified, "It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great system failure at the top levels or it must prevent profound harm to individuals." The article presents exactly this dilemma, therefore undercover reporting is justified. In his chapter, Saltzman provides two prominent examples where the "Mr. Deeds" movies does not use under cover journalism in good taste. The original movie and the remake both use untruthful reporting to get entertaining stories, beat out their news competition, and better their ratings. On page 70 Saltzman quotes the SPJ handbook again to clarify that deception is not justified when "winning a prize or getting the story with less expense of time and resources." Although in "Mr. Deeds" the news sources did not win a prize, they won in the sense that they earned money and ratings from the published stories, making their reasoning for undercover reporting unethical.
In the chapter, Joe Saltzman brings up the dilema about the ends justifying the means, citing 60 minutes creator, Don Hewitt "it's the small crime versus the greater good." (69) The Panorama case is a clear example of the ends justifying the means. Without the undercover reporting the horrors that took place in the private hospital may have never been exposed which would have allowed the atrocities to continue.
Joe Saltzman would approve of the methods utilized by Joe Casey because it revealed a "system failure" which Saltzman refers to when quoting the Society of Professional Journalism. It is clear throughout the chapter that to Saltzman the reporter who goes underover for the "greater good" of the public is more ethical than the reporter who goes undercover for the competitive scoop.
The last paragraph in the chapter mentions the "crusading journalist" as the last informant of the public. I believe the language utilized by Saltzman in this paragraph is enough to convince the reader that he believes certain undercover journalism has its place in reporting.
I think that undercover journalism in this case is acceptable. In the textbook, it states that journalists "went undercover for the best reasons--to inform the public about wrongdoing by business or government" (Saltzman, 60). Although it does go against the primary mission of the journalist, to be honest and truthful, the world is not a perfect place. Everyone finds loopholes to do things that are considered "unethical" without getting caught. The textbook states numerous journalists that went undercover to find the actual truths: In the Sunday Edition in 1910, a reporter infiltrates a gang. Another reporter acts insane to be placed in an asylum to find the truth of the institution. in 1945, a journalist gets information from a police department using deception (62).
The reality is that all the truth is undercover. What people hears to be the truth could only be part of the truth, the favorable part that the public wants to hear. Stories that makes it the news must be dramatic. The textbook brings an example of deceptive reporting from the film, Mr. Deeds. The editor of the newsroom decides to "spice up" the news that the reporter shot, and tells the reporter, "The truth was a great story. Heroic is nice. Depraved and insate is better" (67).
The reality is based on what the public wants. If the public decides crime is bad, and ones that do commit crime would be punished, it does not mean that the crime will demolish. It only means that they will go undercover to be unseen or unheard. No one is really ethical anymore. How ethical is it to be having a full body tattooed man to be a senior support worker at a care home, and for no one to even know this happening until it was necessary to make a journalist cross his line of his job to find the real truth? Although it is a job for the journalists to tell the truth, if everyone is being unethical, it only becomes possible for journalists to figure out the truth and report it by them being a part of the unethical process, such as a reporter being a supportive worker at the hospital to find out the truth of the abuse at the care home.
Panorama conducted an undercover investigation at a youth hospital in Bristol, exposing a multitude of abuses by the staff. The article we were sent about the investigation unabashedly praises the efforts of the reporters, saying that their deception was necessary. The British government agreed, immediately taking action against the hospital. I suppose the article and the British government's response suggest that the ends DO justify the means---if the truth exposed is more toxic than the methods used to expose it, the deception is justified, even if a crime was committed. I'm sure the reporter would have been prosecuted for providing false information, but the British government wasn't going to make this huge misstep. We can see here that the step the British government made was logical and pragmatic. It wanted to go after the REAL wrongdoer, and appear good while doing it.
The best argument that Saltzman makes is that it makes little sense to expose the deception of government or business leaders by using deception. He also points out that it undermines the legitimacy of the news outfit the reporter is working for, and journalism in general. These negative aspects of undercover journalism exist whether it is justified or not; the decision should be based on whether the story is worth enough for journalism to take these hits.
Looking at the Society for Professional Journalists' piece on undercover reporting, this story seems to fulfill most or all of the prerequisites to justify the duplicitousness. I would only question the first one, which asks if the story is of "profound importance" and "vital public interest." I don't think the story was far-reaching enough to be either of these things. It involved a single hospital, so it wasn't anything that affected enough people to be of "vital public interest"...the information was only vital to the friends and relatives of the teens in the hospital.
Also, in the SPJ's list of things that SHOULDN'T justify undercover reporting, "believing that the actions of the story are themselves unethical," crops up as a problem, since I believe this was probably the main justification the paper had for the investigation. I assume this item is including because an ethical system shouldn't simply be in place to maintain the status quo by encouraging people to act just as unethically as other people, but to raise the ethical bar.
That being said, I think that Saltzman would consider the investigation to be completely justified. Although I believe there are a couple issues with the story with regards to the SPJ's list, I also believe the deception was justified. From the way they are stated, the SPJ's rules are obviously supposed to be open to interpretation, and enough of an argument can be made in the investigation's favor to bypass my aforementioned concerns.
Yes, I do believe Joe Saltzman would approve of the undercover reporting done by TV journalist Joe Casey in the Winterbourne View case. Casey took part in deception, taking a 5-month job as a social worker in order to obtain the video footage, and as a result, was able to expose the mistreatment of vulnerable patients at the private hospital.
The term "masquerading" doesn't sound fit to describe Casey's reporting, because he was given the job, he didn't pretend to be a social worker. Which makes me question how people are deemed qualified to work there. The term that better suites Casey's reporting is "passive deception," because he failed to mention he was a journalist.
What makes Casey's reporting even more acceptable, was that Terry Bryan, a seasoned nurse at the hospital, had been ignored after making three separate complaints
to his employers and the Care Quality Commission. The abuse also went undetected by inspections. The parent's of Simone, the 18-year old patient, didn't even believe her until seeing the footage. The undercover reporting proved to be a last resort to "uncover" the abuse that these vulnerable patients were on the receiving end of. It's like, one of those innocent until proven guilty sort of things. But in this case, the quality of human life and safety was a second priority and of less concern to those whose job it is to protect, including Simone's parents.
As the article states, this case "provides a big reminder of how important undercover reporting and journalism can be to ensuring our society functions decently."
The chapter on Deception and Undercover Journalism, concludes by saying something similar. Saltzman said that this kind of journalism which is useful and ethical in cases like this, could fade if it is rejected from journalism entirely. What Casey did was a risk, but it was a necessary one. Saltzman said that there are few journalist today who are willing to take this risk.
I would say that this case is one "important to to the public welfare" that could not be reported in any other way, and in this case, the ends justified the means (page 69).
In comparison to the examples Saltzman gives regarding "Mr.Deeds Goes to Town," and "Mr.Deeds," Casey's story was of significant importance, which the characters of those two movies violated journalist codes of ethic simply for publicity and profit, and because of competition among other newspapers. It was the motives behind their actions that made them unethical. On top of that, what they were being deceptive about had no real significance to the welfare of people. The outcome of the action, as in both movies, proves just how unethical they were.
I think Joe Saltzman would approve of the use of undercover journalism to uncover this story because the subject involved child abuse, and without the reporting, the abuse would have continued undetected.
Saltzman, in the chapter Deception and Undercover Journalism, draws on the ethical guidelines of The Society of Professional Journalists. The guidelines state that journalistic deception is justified only under the conditions that the information is of “profound importance,” either of “vital public interest” or in preventing “profound harm to individuals.” Joseph Casey’s reporting of the Winterbourne View abuse scandal certainly put a stop to the physical harm to the patients, and prevented harm from continuing. Furthermore, the undercover methods would be justified because “the harm prevented by the information revealed through deception outweighs any harm caused by the act of deception.”
Saltzman writes, “Many journalists maintain that undercover reporting should be the last resort only used when all other means are exhausted.”
The Winterbourne story definitely meets this criterion, because if the staff or administrators committing or allowing the abuse were to be confronted by the press about it, they would obviously lie, deny the claims and try to cover it up. So the only way to witness the crime firsthand, and catch the abusers in the act, would be through deception.
This instance of undercover journalism is different from that portrayed in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town because that story was only interesting from a voyeuristic, entertainment perspective and was not of vital public interest. It did not prevent any harm from occurring, but instead caused harm through the act of deception. Also, the information obtained in the story most likely could have been gathered in another way.
Undercover journalism is a tricky subject. I agree with Joe Saltzman that undercover journalism must be done carefully, thoughtfully and when a situation is of such importance as to warrant it. The movie he examines, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, is the perfect example of when none of these criteria are met. He writes, “But even by this more flexible standard…,” speaking of weighing the wrong of the deceit to that of the story,”…Mr. Deeds goes to Town and Mr. Deeds fail miserably. Saltzman references the Society of Professional Journalists guideline which state, among other things, the story needs to be “of vital public interest, such as revealing great ‘system failure.’” This brings us the Guardian story about the Panorama film, Undercover Care: The Abuse Exposed. I believe Saltzman would agree that this story fit the mold for acceptable undercover reporting. There was a systematic failure in the hospital to care for their patients and keep them safe. The public had a genuine need to know what was happening to their loved ones, their fellow citizens and ultimately what could happen to themselves if they were admitted to Winterbourne View in Bristol. Hospitals have an extreme amount of power and responsibility over patients at their facilities and as such, journalists should seek to make sure the hospitals are living up to their responsibility and ethical obligation. The deceit committed by the journalist is far out weighed by the wrongdoing of the hospital.
Under cover reporting is a touchy subject because some people find it to be unethical. Joe Saltzman feels under cover reporting should only be done in extreme cases and may only be used in situations where the public has a right to know. I feel in the case of young patients being abused and mistreated at a private hospital, Saltzman would find it ethically sound to commit to under cover reporting. Since nearly everyone and their mothers were ignoring what was going on at Winterbourne View, i also believe under cover reporting was the only and absolute necessary solution. Not only would the great Joe Saltzman and I agree on this matter, but i feel anyone with a soul and and an ounce of compassion would also agree. People go to hospitals because they are ill and need nourishment and care, double emphasis on the care/nourishment for a PRIVATE hospital. People do not go to hospitals to get their hands stepped on or to be thrown in cold showers. The world had to be shown what was going on behind the scenes at Winterbourne View and i commend Joe Casey for his work. Shame on the staff working at the private hospital for mistreating the poor young patients and being so inhumane. I also feel Simone's parents should be ashamed of themselves for not believing her claims and reports of abuse, the world may have found out about the tyranny and abuse at the hospital is they werent so ignorant, along with everyone else.
Yes, Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting in the article. He finishes the chapter saying that undercover reporting could be gone forever if more journalists do not undercover. Saltzman made several valid points in the chapter, reminding the reader of the good that comes out of undercover journalism.
It is hard for me to decide whether I approve or disapprove of undercover journalism because I do not like that a journalist has to go under a false identity and lie (or just not tell the whole truth). On the other hand, more good comes out of the report because it unveils the madness that is taking place in the factory, work place, etc.
Undercover journalism is a prime example of "seek truth and report it," but how can a journalist seek the truth if they aren't telling the truth about their identities when going undercover. But I think that the end result outweighs any questions about undercover journalism, because ultimately the journalist is shedding light on an issue that needs to be addressed and that it is a "need to know" basis versus a "want to know".
The use of undercover reporting is certainly not appropriate in all circumstances, or even most. Saltzman stresses the need to be absolutely sure that an issue is of vital importance before taking part in deceitful tactics. He uses the case of Mr Deeds to illustrate when any kind of deception is unwarranted. Taking advantage of someone's trust like the reporter in the film was not justifiable because "it is undercover reporting that serves no public interest, just gossip and entertainment."
However, I believe that Saltzman would without a doubt support the use of undercover reporting in the case of Winterbourne View Hospital. The reporter involved used Masquerading to infiltrate the facility and father information about abuse taking place. Not only had patients already reported the abuse, but a worker had even taken measures to have it addressed and was ignored. This only adds to the justification for deceiving the hospital, and meets Saltzman's criteria as a "story important to public welfare that cannot be reported in any other way"(69). The SPJ also states that deception can be used "When the information is of profound importance. It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great "system failure" at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals"(69). This is applicable to the Winterbourne case on almost every level, because the people being failed were essentially voiceless.
I think this is a very strong situation and very few people would argue AGAINST the merits of this report. Whenever there is a drastic change between the actual conditions and those presented there is an obvious problem that is being covered up. In my opinion Saltzman finds undercover reporting to be unethical when the nature of the report has no pertinence to anything besides gossip. The use of Babe Bennett illustrates that she is simply going undercover in a way to get the worst side of a man and is betraying his trust to do so. The actions taken by this reporter to expose panorama home care is a noble action taken to show people the horrors that young patients are enduring when the wrong people are left to care for them.
To umbrella undercover reporting as "unethical" is foolish because ethics is a scale and can only be weighed after the fact. At the end of the day this reporting resulted in better conditions for people who were taken advantage of and this is the ultimate goal of a journalist, to make a positive impact.
Based on the text, Saltzman would ask us to consider whether the ends justifies the means. If it does, then the deception of the reporter is permissible.
In this case, I believe Saltzman would agree that the end does justify the means. According to the article, member of the staff at Winterbourne had attempted to shine a light on the abuse by filing three reports, which went unnoticed. Then the worker contacted the press, which fulfilled the responsibilities of journalism by revealing a social problem which had not been taken care of by the appropriate parties in charge of protecting the patients.
Saltzman describes undercover reporting as "deceiving people who think they can talk freely" but goes on to say that "there are stories important to the public welfare that cannot be reported in any other way."
So long as the story is not written or reported to promote sensationalism, and the reporter does not do so with the intent to win any awards or otherwise promote themselves, the end in this case does justify the means.
After reading the chapter it becomes very clear that Saltzman is against undercover journalism. It goes against every rule in the book and more often than not is just something to get people riled up. But in the case of the abuse in the hospital I think that undercover journalism is important. Although they are outright lying about who they are, or masquerading, it ultimately helped people who were truly in need. It's not like this was all just some ruse to trick someone into something for a reporter to tell a story about, this was concerning the livelihood of people who are unable to defend themselves. Was there another way to go about exposing the abusive employees? I don't think so. Complaints were made, and patients told their family members but nothing was done. If it hadn't been for the undercover reporter bringing the truth upfront, who knows what would have happened to those patients. I think in this situation Saltzman would agree with me. No one wants to see someone hurt, and if undercover journalism helped them get out of this situation, so be it.
The practice of undercover reporting can be seen as being unethical because of the deceptive nature of the reporting style. This can be necessary in certain situations. I believe that Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting done in the article because of the severity of the case. As he points out in the chapter, undercover reporting should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. In this situation, the reporter was not pursuing a story for personal gain, but exposing a wrongdoing for the public good. This idea is reinforced by the society for professional journalism falling under the category of “greater good”. I think it is also important to remember how easy it is for any person to publish a story online today making it possible for anyone to “see truth and report it”.
Post a Comment