This article was written by Kevin Silverstein, and it is about journalists going undercover in order to get their "story". The journalist the story is talking about is a man who posed as a representative for a London based energy company with interests in Turkmenistan.
He used the fact that the lobbyists in Washington knew that Turkmenistan is a run by a neo-Stalinist regime, and they did not pay attention to this fact, because the money they were going to be receiving was going to be over $1.5 million year. "they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists). "
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post's disagrees with the tactics that Kevin Silverstein took in order to get his story. "No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects," said Kurtz.
This can be done quietly because there are little to no restriction on lobbyists. Although the author went "undercover" in order to gain this information; he would not have gotten the story without it. Lobbyists are not going to come out with information that they are participating in scandalous behavior.
There are times in life when we all need to make ethical decisions. Silverstein was able to exposed the unethical behavior of Washington lobbyists. Going undercover has been a common practice that journalist have taken throughout time. For example, ". . . there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City. "
Silverstein is forced to defend his actions, when others are praised for them. "In my case, I was able to gain an inside glimpse into a secretive culture of professional spinners only by lying myself. I disclosed my deceptions clearly in the piece I wrote (whereas the lobbyists I met boasted of how they were able to fly under the radar screen in seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy)." He was not harming anyone in the process of his undercover work. He was bringing to light the irresponsible actions of others; therefore he was completely within the realm of being ethical.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is a complicated case and I am not sure I know all the facts of the matter. Journalists must not malicously manipulate others for a story. I agree that there are some exceptions for degrees of manipulation, as in sting operations. In an "ethical case," the hidden identity woud only allow the reporter to observe the corruption, without any influence to it. The reporter hid their identity in the Mental Institute to be treated as any other, but did not lure any special attention because of the phacade. The phacade must not lure and initiate the corruption. This is considered entraptment. If a journalist hides their identity in order to initiate, secure, and expose a weapons deal, then I would consider the arms dealers victims of entraptment. It can be compared to a cop doing the same thing, or posing as a minor online to lure in preditors. Both are hiding their identity, luring in the tempted, then exposing the whole operation. If the reporter initiated and signficantly influenced the deal based on the hidden identity, then I wold consider this unethical.
I believe that the journalist was being unethical. He misrespresented himself an order to get a story that not called going "undercover" thats called deception. Its not like the journalist is a cop and has taken an oath to protect citizens this was a journalist doing whatever it took to get an article. I wouldn't even read this journalist article if I knew how he obtained the information you lied to get the info and then you want the public to trust that your only looking out for our interest.
I feel that the journalsit was wrong for using false identity to get a story. I feel taht he was being unethical in his attempts to get a good news story. If we see that this man is willing to lie and pose as something he is not, it makes me lose credibility for this journalist. If he is willing to lie for a news story what makes the reader think he won't give false information in his stories? I think that journalist are taking a big risk pulling stunts like these.
I think it depends on the situation, but I don't really see too much wrong with going undercover. I think that people's privacy deserves to be respected, however, sometimes a story needs to be told. Maybe there's a back story that no one knows about. I feel that if it's necessary to go undercover to get the news, then by all means do so.
However, I feel that journalists should only go undercover it is one hundred percent necessary. There is no reason to trick, manipulate or lie to innocent people just to get useless information.
I think it is up to the journalist's discretion whether they feel they need to go undercover or not, but they should keep in mind that when doing so, they are lying to others.
I agree that this is a complicated issue as well. Journalists want to be able to get the most out of the sources they can find but it is hard to be truthful and be provided with unlimited information. I would say that it is worth it to tell the truth and see where that gets you rather then being found out and losing credibility as a writer and reporter.
Post a Comment