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.
24 comments:
The type of undercover reporting that Panorama conducted fits Saltzman's guidelines. The abusers at Winterbourne View Hospital were able to hide their crimes and avoid punishment by manipulating a flawed system. More importantly, their victims did not receive any attention, and it was easy for people to dismiss their cries for help given their predicaments. Joe Casey's actions were not done for the sake of "winning a prize" or because it meant less expenditures to get the story. The reporting was done to expose something of "profound importance" and succeeded in ". . . revealing 'great system failure' at the top levels." These patients should have been given compassion, comfort and understanding each step of the way, but someone with a power trip and influence was ruining their lives. No one was saying anything, and the man at the helm was able to bend the system to his will. Had this story not reached the public when it did, I fear for what could have happened to Simone and the other victims. But this was definitely not a story that would come out on it's own. Too many people were malicious, and too many people were keen to look away.
Casey's ethical rule-breaking is something easily over-shadowed by the problem. Yes, he did lie, and yes, he filmed these people without (it seems) their consent. But didn't their actions rescind those privileges? These workers pinned patients under chairs, dragged them out of their beds, and mocked them when they tried to escape the hell that had been given. I do not believe there is any ethical loss in deceiving them. I believe there is an ethical loss in allowing the patients to suffer because of one man's actions.
Even so, as Saltzman reaffirms, this was a last resort. Official complaints and statements failed, and even tips from the inside were ignored until Terry Bryan came to the BBC. If instead Bryan tipped off the police, or some other official, the cops would be no different than the machines the abusers typed their statements into. The problem, and the corruption, would have festered.
Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting done by Panorama. Saltzman along with other journalists believe that the best reason for going undercover is to inform the public about wrong doing by a government or business. This method of reporting was not viewed as the first and only option, but as a last resort. Joey Casey, a TV journalist, may have deceived everyone, but not simply to get a story. Casey exposed the abuse that was going on at Winterbourne View hospital due to the courageous Terry Bryan approaching BBC. If undercover reporting was not used, then the abuse would have gone undetected by inspections and complaints to employers would be ignored. Therefore, Saltzman would agree with Panorama because the public wouldn’t get the truth from Winterbourne View alone.
In addition, Casey faced an ethical dilemma because deception is a “premeditated assault on a person’s privacy and dignity and violates basic trust between human beings”, according to Saltzman. Casey went into the hospital with hidden cameras and posed as someone he wasn’t. However, the lack of consent from patients and the lies he told about himself was outweighed by serving public interest. Saltzman stated that there is no room for deception when a story is insignificant to everyday life of most Americans. In the case of Winterbourne View this does not apply. Panorama’s story was important to public welfare because it not only exposed the harsh and cruel treatment of the patients by the staff, but the fact that all of this supposedly went on behind closed doors without anyone knowing about it. As a result, undercover reporting saved current and future patients from going through this treatment as well as shedding light on the cover up of said treatment.
A violation of trust is an ethical dilemma, but according to Saltzman there are higher priorities. In this circumstance the victims were victims of lies and non-consent which was outweighed by the brutalizing truth that the reporter was out to get. The future patients that were spared the pain and unfair treatment because it was publicized and there was no other way to extract that information it seems.
Winterbourne View would not have given the information that the reporter was chasing. In order to preserve the "greater good" of a better and more functional service/care the only thing to do was either put together a lawsuit (and gather evidence, who knows through what methods) or bring the abuse into public light and judgement (gathering evidence through deception).
There is always shaky moral ground when deception is involved. Lies of omission are still lies and lies under most circumstances are unethical. I supposed it depends on how great the greater good is.
I believe Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting in the Panorama film. According to the chapter, ethicists believe that the fundamental question is "whether deception is the best way to get the story."
Because the whistleblower had gone to both the care organization and the governmental branch before contacting Panorama, the involvement of journalists was not for sensationalism, but as a last resort. There really was no other option to expose the malpractices of the care facility.
The reporter had to lie in order to gain access to witness patients and the abuse they endured, but the film ultimately spurred governmental action. The documentary benefited the patients and the public, who had the need to know. The deception was not trivial, but the benefits of involvement far outweighed the cons of the reporter's lies to immerse themselves in the situation.
The undercover tactics were clearly given thought and had gone through appropriate sanctions. It was not reckless or for the sake of gossip, it was relevant and important for society as a whole, and that is why Saltzman would approve.
Saltzman would definitely approve. I can't say that Joe Casey wasn't trying to 'win a prize,' because I'm not psychic. We should be trying to win prizes for everything we write, but that's besides the point: had Casey not gone undercover, there would be no story. If the BBC had asked Winterbourne if they could get a couple of cameras in there, they probably would have been allowed in - after every care provider on the premises had been given a thorough speech on how to present themselves in front of cameras, and how to reaffirm their proffesionality so they didn't get screwed on air. The risk, in this case, is nothing compared to the reward - not a monetary reward, or a reward of recognition (well, not necessarily... I mean, we are talking about the guy) but the reward of doing exactly what you're supposed to do in investigative journalism: shine a light.
Without Casey going undercover, there would be no story. Without a story, defenseless people would have suffered indefinite torture. This is not a matter of going undercover to out some celebrity or screw up some politician's career for a partisan rag, this is a courageous act, a moral good, and absolutely worth going undercover for. If it were our story, and it were the only way, we'd go undercover too.
I think Joe Saltzman would approve of the situation described in the Guardian article. In the chapter he makes clear that investigative reporting has its place in journalism. However, he warns of the fine ethical line that investigative reporters straddle. Saltzman argues that investigative journalism is a worthy endeavor when it uncovers information of great importance or prevents serious harm to individuals. If the story ends up trivial and insignificant to most people, then Saltzman argues that investigative reporting is misused and ultimately damages the press’s credibility.
Since the investigation of the hospital exposed and put an end to the significant harm the patients were enduring, Saltzman would agree with the tactic of masquerading was utilized beneficially here for the public’s good. Investigating the situation also seemed to be the only action available—the reporter tried to contact the owner of the hospital as well as the government agency responsible for inspection of such institutions multiple times and got no response. I suppose the reporter could have tried a little harder to contact an official before embarking on a five week long masquerading act, but the article made it seem like the people in power had other things to worry about. If officials are not going to do their job and prevent this kind of treatment from happening, then Saltzman would argue that you have an ethical obligation to prevent the harm yourself. Saltzman would approve investigative reporting in this situation.
Joe Saltzman's attitude towards ethics in journalism has been that of: if there is a social injustice that journalism can right, and if the people have a pressing need to know, then any ethical dilemmas must be in a way tossed aside in order to work for the good of the people, the good of the craft, and the good of democracy. In spite of that, it seems to me that he believes that there is a fine line between deception for deception's sake and deception in order to serve a greater good as a weapon against social injustice.
To that end, I do think he would approve of Panorama's report and the lengths that Joe Casey went to to expose the horrors of Winterbourne View health center. Saltzman is very adamant that deception in investigative journalism be used as a last resort when all other official means yield no results. From what Panorama revealed about the story, it certainly does seem as if diplomacy, so to speak, had failed, with complaints by staffers and and tips from inside sources falling on deaf ears. Thus, what the BBC reported about the severity of the problem clearly outweighed any ethical rule-bending that took place with Joe Casey.
Even with Saltzman's approval, I think that this can be seen as the de-facto "Break Glass In Case of Emergency" situation where going undercover would be both warranted and necessary. Most investigative journalists I feel ignore the other steps and go right to subterfuge when they shouldn't, but in this case, desperate times, as they say, call for desperate measures.
I think that Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting that was done for the Guardian article. In his chapter deception and undercover journalism Saltzman defines the three specific forms of undercover journalism. The most common form masquerading is illustrated in the article. Joe Casey can be compared to other past journalists who have gone undercover like Elizabeth Cochrane or Winifred Black. When Casey goes undercover he doesn't just go to the hospital and lie about who he is, he has a plan before he goes undercover and does his own research. Casey goes to the governmental branch and other resources before contacting the hospital. It all depends on the way you report and go about reporting that makes it ethical or not. I feel that this tactic that Casey did is one that Saltzman can approve of because of these reasons. He was informative and reported the truth.
Saltzman would absolutely approve of Panorama's undercover reporting. The chapter references the Society of Professional Journalists' guidelines for determining when deception can be justified, and the patient abuse at Winterbourne View hospital is one of those justifiable scenarios. The mistreatment of the patients is a public interest issue and something that needed to be brought to light for the greater good. Hearing of the abuse and not doing anything to take action would be unethical, in my opinion.
Sure, Joe Casey was deceptive by going undercover and taking a job at the hospital. But he assumed the important role of the whistleblower and exposed an issue that may not have come to light without his work. His actions do not match up to SPJ's criteria for deception that cannot be justified, and it was used as a last resort because there would no other way to document the abuse in full effect otherwise.
I too believe Joe Saltzman would have approved of the undercover reporting conducted by Panorama. In his chapter on deception and undercover journalism, Saltzman argues that undercover reporting can "amount for unethical behavior." However, he also argues that it might be the only option for uncovering the story (p. 69). I think Panorama's tactic was crucial. Innocent patients at Winterbourne View Hospital were being mistreated and there was no way of proving it. Patients would make claims but could not prove themselves. So why not go undercover?
Yes, I have argued in the past in a previous case study that this might not be the ethical decision to make. But if there are reports of abuse and misconduct then maybe we should reconsider undercover reporting as an option to uncover the truth.
Joe Saltzman would approve of the undercover investigation Panorama took to expose the truth at Winterbourne View Hospital because he believed that the reason to go undercover is to inform the public of wrong doing. The patients at the hospital were being abused while they were at a vulnerable state and the need to expose that should not have restrictions. Granted, the need for a journalist to go undercover should not be the first step taken to expose the truth, but to me it is ethical to do so as a last resort. As a human it is wrong to not get involved if wrong doing is right in front of you.
TV journalist Joe Casey went undercover as a worker at Winterbourne View Hospital after whistle blower nurse Terry Bryan had been left with no more options for justice. Bryan had been ignored after making three different complaints to his employers. With help from Bryan and Panorama, the abusive staff was exposed through footage. Had there not been an undercover investigation, the hospital would have just covered up any proof of abuse to its patients and nothing would have stopped.
As a journalist, Casey faced the ethical dilemma of being deceitful from his role as a investigative employee or being a hero by stopping the abuse. By Casey's choice in the article itjust proves that undercover investigation may be the only resort when no action has been taken elsewhere. Casey's reason for going undercover is not to just get a story but his plan is to help the people and expose the truth so something can be done. I do not believe that Casey did anything wrong and Saltzman would agree with that statement.
Joe Saltzman would approve of the Panorama's undercover journalism. The story wasn't sensational or meant for the profit of the network. It showed a grim reality that needed to be brought to light so the proper changes would be made. It also was a last resort, as many other attempts and whistle blowers were ignored. Unlike Ms. Babe Bennett in Mr Deeds, this story wasn't meant for a fast pace tabloid trying to sell more copies. Also unlike Mr. Deeds, the story improved the way things were instead of hurting people.
I believe that Saltzman would approve of the methods undertaken in the Panorama investigation. In the balance between the "unethical reporting" that going undercover can sometimes present and the need for the public to know the story, the public need won out.
Under this situation, the deception was ethical. Research was done before-hand, and preparation was utmost in the reporter's approach.
He also exhausts other possibilities, leaving undercover work as the last step.
Joe Saltzman would be a supporter of the reporting in the situation that Panorama found themselves in.
Saltzman believes that the question must be raised about whether or not deception is the best way to get the story.
And in this case deception was definitely the best way to get an accurate story that brought to light all of the terrors that the patients in this care home were dealing with.
Employees and patients tried to tell people what was going on in the place but it was to no avail. It was at the point where the only way these issues could be accurately discovered was through undercover reporting. It would be unethical not to look into this in a way that would bring to light everything as accurately as possible.
In this particular example of undercover reporting the ethics pass a morality test. Saltzman believes deception by journalists should be reserved for when it is a last resort in an effort to uncover necessary information. This information has to be groundbreaking and hidden. This fits in with the case the article describes because there were direct attempts to cover – up this information from the public by public servants. Even the regulators turned a blind eye to the abuse occurring within this hospital. Essentially all routes were exhausted to get the information out to the public, and to resolve the issue. The only way to bring this story to light was through journalism. The coverage received about the abuse shamed these regulatory agencies into action. The coverage of the abuse also served better to the public than any damage that could have occurred. These priorities allow this action to be deemed as ethical. Saltzman would agree with the reasoning and ethical.
I believe that Mr. Saltzman would condone the type of reporting that was employed to expose the atrocities being committed at Winterbourne View.
As stated at the end of the chapter, although undercover reporting is often seen as an unethical practice that should almost always be avoided, "there are stories important to the public welfare that cannot be reported in any other way."
The cries of the patients at Winterbourne View needed to be heard. It is unfortunate that the reporter had to film and report without the organization's consent, but the information he retrieved would have been skewed and the wrongdoings at the establishment would continue. This was a story that was imperative to the public welfare and could not have been reported in any other way.
Joe Saltzman would approve of the undercover reporting done at the Panorama care home. Saltzman says that before conducting any type of undercover reporting, you must ask yourself if that is the only possible way to uncover a story (and still be ethical).
If it weren't for the undercover reporting, the horrible acts happening at this facility would have never been brought to light. And who knows how long it would have continued, nobody cared to listen to the people there and this reporting gave them a voice.
Joe Saltzman would certainly approve of what the undercover reporting that journalist Joe Casey executed. While deception is not a technique that should be used all the time, Saltzman agrees with most journalists in that he believes deception is necessary when the public has the right to know about a situation and there is no other way to inform the public besides going undercover. The horrific article explained abuse such as a young girl being “dragged in and out of cold showers” and having been hit by employees. After this information was disclosed, since there was hard video evidence to prove that there had been no exaggerations, changes were made. As stated in the article “ long overdue change and protection for people who cannot defend themselves” was likely to come about as a result. Had Casey decided against deception and had taken the way that many see as “right” nothing would have changed. That is why it is up to journalists to expose these problems and help those who cannot help themselves.
Saltzman believes it's only acceptable to use deception as a last resort to get the necessary information. In the case of the Winterbourne View, I think Saltzman would consider this sort of deception acceptable, given the nature of the story and the facts that other research and attempts had already been made to get the information without misrepresentatin.
Though this is still not the ideal circumstance, the parties who would've remained in the care of the crooked institution could only benefit from the act of deception and and the "exposing of wrongdoing."
What makes this case okay is that the other options were exhausted first and attempts were made for solid, by-the-books reporting prior to jumping the undercover gun.
I
I think that Saltzman would approve of the undercover reporting done by Panorama. If Casey had not deceived the staff to get the story, the truth would not have been told. Deception generally should not be used in journalism but at times there are reasons to justify deception, most often when there is some sort of corruption or wrong doing. I think that Saltzman would agree that the telling of this wrong doing would be reason enough to go undercover, and that in the end the right thing was done. The truth came out about what was happening and prevented future patients from being treated in the same manner.
Panorama used undercover reporting which can be controversial, and can border the line of what is considered ethical or not. Joe Saltzman wrote that if a journalists actions serve only, "his or her personal, political, or financial gain if the end result is not in the public interest... evil has won out."
Joe Saltzman would most likely say that this reporting fits his guidelines because it was to serve the knowledge of the public interest. These reporters were masquerading as staff workers to unfold the story, and also to reveal the horrible actions taking place in the hospital. Although these journalists used deception it was worth if, because I was the morally right thing to do. It was the "need to know" ethical dilemma which made the journalists actions not only permissible, but necessary.
The Panorama programme released is an example of masquerading. This form of deceptive reporting, known as stunt journalism is discussed by Joe Saltzman. He outlines a history of its popularity and public opinions surrounding this. Many journalist won awards, exposed corruption and served the public’s need and right to know. It is based on the idea that, ‘the ends justify the means’. Often those means are not ethical such as competition, money, and personal gain. On the other hand, stunt journalism has had positive effects. Saltzman clearly states, investigative reporting should be done as a last resort when all other options were exhausted. Additionally, the topic must serve a major significance to public interest. The undercover investigation of Winterborne View exposed inhumane abusive treatments of patients at the hands of their care givers. It is a privately owned hospital, funded by tax payers money. Therefore, the public has the right to know if their tax money is paying the salaries of employees who are committing inhumane acts and crimes. The article on www.thegeaurdian.com discusses the positive outcome of stunt reporting. It states, the investigation used an undercover reporting as a last resort. Just a few hour after the debut, the government took action. The situation was ignited when a former season nurse, Terry Bryan turned to Panorama. Previously, Bryan made reports to management and CQC which were not followed up with an investigation. According the thegaurdian.com “BBC executives responded by saying they did sanction investigations and undercover filming, but carefully.” Personally, I tried to watch the investigation and it was no longer available on BBC’s website. I then, read an article on BBC which was a follow up report on arrests made of four of the former employees. The outcome of the investigation undoubtedly was beneficial. I could not find any information that Panorama attempted to report the complaints to CQC or management. Although, thegaurdian.com states the undercover investigate was a last resort, the reporters themselves did not exhaust their resources before going undercover. If they had done so, the process would have been ethically sound, not just the outcome. In light of this, Terry Bryan is the only person involved who exhausted all options.
Post a Comment