Over the last few days there has been a lot of discussion about journalism, free speech, and the ability to access public space and document and report on what is happening there. At the University of Missouri, a young student photo-journalist wanted to report and document a group of protesters he believed to be "reveling" in victory. Under mounting pressure from activists (them), football players, and national media attention, the president of the University of Missouri system had just stepped down. Surely those activists wanted to be able to disseminate this message; have everyone see their joy, right? No. They did not. They wanted a safe space to be able to enjoy the moment among themselves, among the people that fought for that victory. They didn't want outsiders there. And whatever their reasons - be it that there were people that didn't want or couldn't be documented there, or that they just wanted privacy - this photo journalist felt that he had the right not only personally, but within the first amendment of the United States constitution, to be in that space and document it. He did not feel he needed the permission of the people he would be documenting to document them. Is this journalist entitled to access to other people's lives? Does he have the legal right to simply document whatever he sees in a public space without the consent of those present there?
I'm an anthropologist. I study protest, radical politics, and in some cases illegal acts of political resistance and upheaval. I could have been in that space. I could have been trying to engage in participant observation and interview those protesters. Yet, ethically, and as per the American Anthropological Association's guidelines for research, I would need to gain the consent of the people I was studying and interviewing. At minimum my research project would have gone through an extensive 30 odd page Institutional Review Broad (IRB) application. This process would have assessed the ethics, approaches, and merits of my work when measured against the laws and norms for the ethical treatment of research subjects. In short, I have to gain permission from the people I'm studying, and approval from an ethics board that my work will not harm any of my subjects before I can do any research.
The two methods used for obtaining information by me and this journalist are virtually the same. He takes pictures to document the event (I take pictures when allowed), he planned on publishing those pictures for a broader audience (I plan to do that as well, both pictures and in writing), yet while there is little difference in the way our information is obtained, there is obviously a tremendous difference in the ethical and social implications and permissions we must obtain to engage in said information gathering. Now obviously Anthropology - and science in general - has a dark history of abusing and taking advantage of research subjects, hence the need for this over site. But it's not like journalists have never caused problems, reported erroneously, bent ethical guidelines, or caused irreparable damage to people. Yet they still inherently feel entitled to this information whether the actual people themselves want to give it or not.
And this happens all the time. This reporter was working as a student journalist with ESPN, the largest sports media outlet in the world. If you follow ESPN, or sports in general, you may recall over the last several months a similar incident with privacy regarding ESPN reporting. Jason Pierre-Paul (JPP), a football player for the New York Giants, was involved in a fireworks accident on the 4th of July that disfigured his hand and eventually led to amputating a finger. He spent weeks in the hospital and demanded strict privacy. He wouldn't let his team doctors visit, no coaches or players, only family as he went through this tough time. Yet after some time a journalist from ESPN - Adam Schefter - obtained and published JPP's medical records of the incident. This created a brief uproar about whether it was right to publish this private information. And even beyond the legal aspects of it, the debate was amazingly one sided within the media. While there were a few dissenting voices, the news media continually touted the public's "right to know." This was a public figure, so the public was entitled to know about him. Is nothing sacred?
Listening to the news media (not) police itself was abominable. It's like asking politicians to draw electoral boundaries, or corporations to police their own environmental policies. Most of the things I read were about how respectful the journalist was, claiming his first amendment rights. Yet you watch the video (below) and he aggressively shouts down a black women (he doesn't get aggressive with the white men or women) in a wholly unacceptable way, especially to the principles of this younger generation and its activist community. The problem is, that time after time, the media invades people's privacy, overtakes their safe spaces, and the only voice of censure... is their own. They are the only one's with the platform and audience to critique these actions - their actions. And they rarely do, because their ideology says this is ok, just as those that experimented on humans, or aided colonial masters once thought they were right and it was ok to do what they did.
These protesters at the University of Missouri did not want the media involved because the media has misrepresented Black America for centuries. And yes, maybe not this journalist per se, but the institution he represents has. Society in general has. Yet in rolling out the first amendment, this journalist fell back upon the same document that allowed black people to be slaves, to be 3/5ths of a person - never mind all the other transgressions that this country and its people have leveled on Americans of African decent over the centuries. The bottom line is that this journalist has a responsibility not only to himself and his job as a journalist, but also to the people and society he covers. And while I do not anticipate an IRB for journalists, nor have an answer myself, I think it is time for the field of journalism to reevaluate their sense of entitlement to information "for the public good" in view of this notion of safe spaces. How many times have we heard: "it's for the public good..." which public, who's public? Not those protesters' public. That is why they are protesting, because they have been excluded from the public. And now this journalist wants to include them in it when and as it suits their purposes? No. Let them have their safe space. Take your pictures from afar. Ask them if its ok to be documented. If they say no, then don't publish their pictures. The same way I don't take or publish pictures in squats or activist communities that say not to. Yeah, I don't get the same story or documentation, but I'm treating people with respect and dignity. There are other ways to get the story across; ways that do not invade people's lives to such an extent. Perhaps it is time for journalists to reassess this sense of entitlement, and think about the new world these younger generations are building, and how journalism can respect both people and their stories.
I'm an anthropologist. I study protest, radical politics, and in some cases illegal acts of political resistance and upheaval. I could have been in that space. I could have been trying to engage in participant observation and interview those protesters. Yet, ethically, and as per the American Anthropological Association's guidelines for research, I would need to gain the consent of the people I was studying and interviewing. At minimum my research project would have gone through an extensive 30 odd page Institutional Review Broad (IRB) application. This process would have assessed the ethics, approaches, and merits of my work when measured against the laws and norms for the ethical treatment of research subjects. In short, I have to gain permission from the people I'm studying, and approval from an ethics board that my work will not harm any of my subjects before I can do any research.
The two methods used for obtaining information by me and this journalist are virtually the same. He takes pictures to document the event (I take pictures when allowed), he planned on publishing those pictures for a broader audience (I plan to do that as well, both pictures and in writing), yet while there is little difference in the way our information is obtained, there is obviously a tremendous difference in the ethical and social implications and permissions we must obtain to engage in said information gathering. Now obviously Anthropology - and science in general - has a dark history of abusing and taking advantage of research subjects, hence the need for this over site. But it's not like journalists have never caused problems, reported erroneously, bent ethical guidelines, or caused irreparable damage to people. Yet they still inherently feel entitled to this information whether the actual people themselves want to give it or not.
And this happens all the time. This reporter was working as a student journalist with ESPN, the largest sports media outlet in the world. If you follow ESPN, or sports in general, you may recall over the last several months a similar incident with privacy regarding ESPN reporting. Jason Pierre-Paul (JPP), a football player for the New York Giants, was involved in a fireworks accident on the 4th of July that disfigured his hand and eventually led to amputating a finger. He spent weeks in the hospital and demanded strict privacy. He wouldn't let his team doctors visit, no coaches or players, only family as he went through this tough time. Yet after some time a journalist from ESPN - Adam Schefter - obtained and published JPP's medical records of the incident. This created a brief uproar about whether it was right to publish this private information. And even beyond the legal aspects of it, the debate was amazingly one sided within the media. While there were a few dissenting voices, the news media continually touted the public's "right to know." This was a public figure, so the public was entitled to know about him. Is nothing sacred?
It is time for us as a society to reassess some of these assumptions about access and the public domain. And yes, I know, it would seem that I am advocating for less transparency here (not something I would usually do). More privacy, more consent, more ethics. The flip side of which is less "leaks", and stories catching things like white collar criminals (which I am a big proponent of). I mean, after all, if we needed their consent to look into things, how far would we get? So there is a dilemma here that strikes at the core of how we engage publicly and who has the right to access our information and lives. But also - and I think this is a key issue here - within this we are seeing the different ways younger generations are interacting and engaging socially. 20 years ago, these concepts of safe spaces, horizontalism, consent, etc, where simply not part of this type of national dialog nor ideologies found within journalism. And at this moment when this journalist wanted access to this group he was playing and access card based on old guard tactics, and inherently against the new guard's social norms. He felt entitled to document them, and they felt entitled to privacy and a safe space.
Listening to the news media (not) police itself was abominable. It's like asking politicians to draw electoral boundaries, or corporations to police their own environmental policies. Most of the things I read were about how respectful the journalist was, claiming his first amendment rights. Yet you watch the video (below) and he aggressively shouts down a black women (he doesn't get aggressive with the white men or women) in a wholly unacceptable way, especially to the principles of this younger generation and its activist community. The problem is, that time after time, the media invades people's privacy, overtakes their safe spaces, and the only voice of censure... is their own. They are the only one's with the platform and audience to critique these actions - their actions. And they rarely do, because their ideology says this is ok, just as those that experimented on humans, or aided colonial masters once thought they were right and it was ok to do what they did.
These protesters at the University of Missouri did not want the media involved because the media has misrepresented Black America for centuries. And yes, maybe not this journalist per se, but the institution he represents has. Society in general has. Yet in rolling out the first amendment, this journalist fell back upon the same document that allowed black people to be slaves, to be 3/5ths of a person - never mind all the other transgressions that this country and its people have leveled on Americans of African decent over the centuries. The bottom line is that this journalist has a responsibility not only to himself and his job as a journalist, but also to the people and society he covers. And while I do not anticipate an IRB for journalists, nor have an answer myself, I think it is time for the field of journalism to reevaluate their sense of entitlement to information "for the public good" in view of this notion of safe spaces. How many times have we heard: "it's for the public good..." which public, who's public? Not those protesters' public. That is why they are protesting, because they have been excluded from the public. And now this journalist wants to include them in it when and as it suits their purposes? No. Let them have their safe space. Take your pictures from afar. Ask them if its ok to be documented. If they say no, then don't publish their pictures. The same way I don't take or publish pictures in squats or activist communities that say not to. Yeah, I don't get the same story or documentation, but I'm treating people with respect and dignity. There are other ways to get the story across; ways that do not invade people's lives to such an extent. Perhaps it is time for journalists to reassess this sense of entitlement, and think about the new world these younger generations are building, and how journalism can respect both people and their stories.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"I received The 5 Year Journal as a Xmas present. I start each day's entries with Aura-Soma - Discovery Through Colour Tarot cards pulled that day and any significant messages and/or events from the day. The format helps me to simplify and get to the essence of the day. Thank you for this book." M.guarantor
ReplyDelete