Basic HTML Version
gal, governmental and private-con–
tinues unabated.
Journalistlc Eavesdropplng
Government is not the only realm in
which such techniques are enjoying
increased popularity. Hidden bug–
ging devices and other types of eaves–
dropping equipment a re rapidly be–
coming accepted tools of the trade of
the investigative journalist.
As one recently published book on
investigative reporting puts it: "After
all, how many reporters wouldn't use
a good phone tap if they could buy
one for $20? Or a $15 microphone
that looks like a dead cockroach and
could be surreptitiously dropped un–
der a mayor's desk? Sorne reporters
we know are already beginning to
think in these terms" (David Ander–
son and Peter Benjaminson,
lnvesti–
gative Reporting.
p. 146). The book
also predicts that "eventually such
devices will be readi!y and cheaply
available and will become a very
common part of politics and busi–
ness." In1erestingly, the book spends
little time discussing legal and ethi–
cal considerations of such practices.
In addition to the growing unau–
thorized use of electronic eavesdrop–
ping techniques, the news media are
increasingly engaging in yet another,
equally insidious form of privacy in–
vasion: 1he reckless and unprincipled
use of informants and tipsters for
surreptitious surveillance.
Informants who possess definite,
tangible and personal knowledge of
criminal wrongdoing should natural–
ly come forward and present their
information in confidence to the
proper authorities for inv·estigation.
Such actions are not at issue.
What is at issue is the increasing
use by the press of unsubstantiated
tips provided by often questionable
individuals as the primary basis for
many of their "news" stories. While
journalism textbooks strongly cau–
tion reporters to be
highly suspect
of
any information provided by infor–
mants or "inside dopesters," such
cautions go largely unheeded.
A need for caution on the part of
journalists unquestionably exists. As
has been repeatedly demonstrated,
the motives of many informants are
often, to say the least, less than pure.
Sorne sources, for example, have pro–
vided their "information"-some-
The
PLAIN TRUTH May 1979
times highly exaggerateqt distorted
or even fabricated-to
the·~news
me–
dia in an attempt to avenge them–
selves on their superiors or colleagues
who they feel have done them injury.
Others have done it for personal fi.
nancial gain. Still others are simply
on a personal ego trip, deriving a
sense of self-importance from snoop–
ing around and playing "spy."
In the first place, the very fact that
these individuals would take it upon
themselves to invade the privacy and
betray the trust of their employers
and associa tes by violating the confi–
dentiality of prívate conversations
and other personal information
shouldin itself be a tip-off to report–
ers that their moral integrity is seri–
ously in question.
As the previously cited book ort
investigative reportíng observes, in–
formants "are not necessarily ethi–
cal ... and every one of their tips
must be thoroughly checked out, es–
pecially if the reporter senses that the
newly discovered journalistic egos of
the volunteer a ides are driving them
to exaggeration." In the end, the
book stresses, "it's
the reporter,
no1
the source, who is responsible for re–
portorial inaccuracies."
Ncver1heless, lazy and irresponsi–
ble newsmen persist in docilely pass–
ing on to the reading and viewing
public the wild allegations, insinua–
tions, innuendos, hearsay and gossip
being fed to them by informants
withoul properly checking the infor–
mation out. Reputations a re 1hereby
irreparably damaged, characler is
defamed, human dignily is debased.
And when the unsubs1antiated
charges and allegations are Iater di s–
proved by documentation or litiga–
tion, more often than not little or no
mention of the fact is made on lhe a ir
or in the press. So much for journal–
istic "fair play."
lt
is true that when a person be–
comes involved in a news event, he
forfeits the right to privacy. But that
does not constitute a license for the
unwarranted and unrestrained pub–
lishing of damaging and unsubstan–
tiated allegation and hearsay. As the
French philosopher Voltaire wisely
advised: "When we hear news, we
should always wait for the sacrament
of confirma tion." Evidently few jour–
nalists are reading Voltaire.
In response to such charges, many
newsmen are quick to cry "freedom of
the press!" They assert that ifsociety is
to benefit from a free press, reporters
and editors must have free and total
access to a ll types of information and
freedom lo print it without prior re–
straint or excessive reprisal. At issue is
the clash between the First Amend–
ment right of a newspaper to collecl
news and an individuai's or organiza–
tion's Fourth Amendment right to pri–
vacy.
Sorne journalists have gone so far
as to asserl that freedom of the press
must be absolutely protected even
when used irresponsibly, unelhically
or even illegally. Such newsmen con–
fuse liberty with license. The Found–
ing Falhers provided for freedom of
the press, but he who used thal free–
dom was still to be responsible in the
event of its abuse- justas surely as a
person must pay a penalty if, in the
course of exercising his freedom lo
bear arms, he should use bis firearm
to commit murder.
Accurately reporting a libelous as–
sertion does not absolve the journalist
of culpability. Bias and reckless di s–
regard of the truth are totally inde–
fensible. Many reporlers nevertheless
continue to coast blindly along, giv–
ing little thought to questions of the
ethics of their profession, Jet alone of
law and of the const itutionalily of
sorne of their questionable "news–
gathering" techniques. They are
seemingly willing, through sorne
strange form of contradictory reason–
ing, to infringe upon personal free–
doms in order to perform their mis–
sion of " preserving" our freedoms.
And amid it al!, the vast majority of
peopl~people
whose personal liber–
ties are not
for che moment
being
encroached upon- sit idly back,
oblivious to the ominous implica1ions
for the future.
Such cavalier disregard and un–
concern for journalistic ethics and le–
gal and constitutional consideralions
was highlighted recently when a na–
tionally known network investigative
reporter remarked publicly, in a
somewhal offband manner, that he
did not know
where a tape of a prí–
vate conversation in his possession
carne from, or indeed whether the
tape was legally obtained.
The public's "right to know" is no
excuse for crime and constitutional
violation. In short, many journalists
19