Journalistic Ethics, Exposing Sources and Pedophilia
Journalists are facing a modern-day version of an old challenge. Should journalists leave behind their "fair and balanced" ethics to expose a crime (or sell their product), or abandon the confines of journalism all together and move from informers to informants?
Traditional journalistic ethics are being challenged in France because of an installment on the series Les Infiltrés called "Pedophiles: The Predators." In it, reporter Laurent Richard pretended online to be variously a 12-year-old girl and a man who was sexually interested in children. He communicated with several people who collected child pornography, then traveled to Montreal and met a man he later turned in. In terms of traditional journalistic ethics, this could be seen a betrayal of the confidentiality of his source.
Some may have the reaction of "So what if he violated some abstract ethics? He caught somebody." The problem here is the challenge to journalistic ethics and to the nature of journalism itself, which can have a tremendous effect on what the public learns. People's safety, health and even lives can and have been dependent on information journalists gained from confidential sources.
In some parts of the world, journalists have legal protection that won't allow the courts to force them to betray their sources. In other parts of the world such as the United States, they aren't always protected, and journalists have gone to jail for standing by their ethics of keeping a source confidential. In this case, the revelation was planned.
These ethics are not just some abstraction: they are very practical and vital to keeping the public informed. Any time you see an article that says, "an unidentified source," that source is trusting the ethics of the journalist that his or her identity will not be revealed. A reporter who betrays that confidence will lose not only that contact, but many other potential sources. This means that the public may never learn about possible dangers in their health care, the safety of their automobiles, corruption in their representatives, or other threats to their personal welfare because critical sources will dry up.A classic case in America is the exposure of the politically-motivated cover-up of the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Originally, the break-in was little known. Perhaps more importantly is that the connection between the break-in, the campaign to re-elect American President Richard M. Nixon, and an effort to cover up that connection were unknown.
But a source known for over three decades only as "Deep Throat" revealed it, and Nixon resigned as a result, the first and so-far only such resignation in American history. Several prominent officials were convicted largely because of the reporting and information from this secret source. Had William Mark Felt, Sr. feared his real identity would be exposed by the journalists that knew it, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed.
In another example, the mixing of journalism and police work on America's Dateline NBC segment To Catch a Predator led by Chris Hansen led to a suicide. Texas District Attorney Louis William "Bill" Conradt Jr. killed himself when a SWAT team and Dateline entered his home in a child pornography/predator investigation.
A major impetus for the investigation was supposed changes in Conradt's Myspace pages, but Hansen later admitted he had never even seen them. In Texas, it's possible to get 20 years in prison and become a lifetime registered sex offender for possessing and showing images that would be considered legal in many other parts of America and even other parts of Texas, but that's a separate issue.
Some may ask, "But in those cases the sources didn't know they were talking to a journalist anyway." That may be true. But as more people learn that some professional journalists will expose their sources, then might they not fear that any professional journalist they want to confidentially tell vital information might betray them?On a personal note, I am in an unusual position because I've been both a salaried journalist and a freelance investigator. But I kept those activities separate. As a journalist, I knew that if I was ever ordered to reveal my sources, I would face the threat of jail rather than make that betrayal. As happens with many journalists, I have been threatened.
Private citizens and unlicensed investigators have been a significant help in a number of investigations. And so have journalists whose reporting is "fair and balanced" and who keep their sources confidential. But I hope we will work to keep those areas separate, and move away from an "infotainment" trend where deception and scandal-mongering are accepted as long as they make money. Learn more at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1981057,00.htmlNo threat is intended to any copyright of the Coppertone girl representing Coppertone, a product of the Schering-Plough Corporation, nor to the photo of Chris Hansen.
Entries by persons who are members or associates of The Loveshade Family do not necessarily represent the views of the whole family.
Comments
Today things are mixing all together. Many reporters are more entertainers, and innocent photos of kids in a bathtub are getting people arrested.
Why can't we focus on what really hurts people and work to prevent it happening in the first place? Why are we so bent on revenge? And why are people so entertained by seeing other people hurt?
Posted by: TawTew the Naturally Perfurmed | April 12, 2010 09:09 PM
I agree with Alden Loveshade. In the past reporters would go to jail to protect their sources. Those days have sure passed us by.
The source is vermin that crawls in trash piles but we need to establish trust or you will lose it forever.
Then reporters will have to make up their own fantasy stories because there will be no whistleblowers or informants to give them stories like Watergate.
Have a great day
Posted by: Vernon Avaritt | April 12, 2010 10:15 PM
It's like now it doesn't matter who you hurt as long as it makes money. I don't trust reporters.
Posted by: Marie Gilbert | April 13, 2010 09:31 PM
Chris Hansen will be knocking on Loveshade's door any time now for posting that bestiality child pornography. I hope they get it all on camera. Maybe you might want to think about killing yourselves, huh?
Posted by: Rev. Bootie | April 14, 2010 06:18 PM
What is more important, a set of ethics that's not law, that's not Biblical, or arresting people for serious crimes? Honest people won't refuse to talk to reporters just because dishonest people get arrested. If you're honest, you have nothing to hide.
Posted by: Christian Andy | April 17, 2010 05:56 AM
Welcome Back Andy
I love your comments!
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. To say that if you’re honest you have nothing to hide. Well everybody on the face of this Earth has done something wrong. That doesn't mean that they want to exhibit all of their skeletons. That would be embarrassing to air your secrets out in the open so that your family, friends, and loved ones will know. Most people aren’t perfect. We have all fallen short of the mark. You may be different and have never sinned. If someone wants to tell their story to the National Enquirer that’s fine, but I’m not going to do it. If you have disease like Diabetes, a mental problem, even a social disease (like aids), that is fine if you don’t want to announce it after your name. You don’t have to let everyone know what problems you have if you don’t want to. Just act responsibly and don’t spread AIDS.
If you can't trust someone you won’t go to them. If you see a thug beat someone up, you don't want them to do it to you. Walking up to someone and witnessing to them while they're killing someone may put the Holy Spirit in their heart, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. They might give you the same treatment. Try witnessing a murder or other major crime then see if you want to let them know that you know they done the crime and you are openly going to turn them in.
It would be nice if everybody would go to a newspaper reporter and tell them the truth and damn the consequences. Most people are not like that; they want something in return, like not being turned in. If I knew of a crime that someone from the Yakuza or Organatziya had done I sure wouldn't tell about it unless I had anonymity or protection. Openly giving the police the information, testifying in court, then going back home; may be the right thing to do, but it probably would get you killed quickly. I know that you can try to reason with your assassins about the immorality of killing but it probably will not help. If sources are not kept secret then almost all people will not talk.
Have a Great Day Everyone.
Posted by: Vernon Avaritt | April 17, 2010 05:30 PM
I don't know if that pics illegal or not but please take it off. It's nasty.
Posted by: Eddie | April 17, 2010 06:29 PM
Why can't we focus more on preventing crimes instead of solving them after they're already done? But really I don't think people trust reporters anyway. But if they're investigators they should be called investigators not reporters. Reporters report the news but these people are making the news. Thats not the same thing
Posted by: Lorien Loveshade | April 20, 2010 02:17 AM
The picture of the girl and the dog looks cute with nothing nasty or offensive. The picture of the stern Mr. Hansen looks a little frightening.
Posted by: TawTew the Naturally Perfumed | April 23, 2010 03:21 PM
You're more worried about some journalist ethics than you are men raping babies? That's just sick.
Posted by: Tom T. Trucker | April 23, 2010 09:23 PM
Did you read the whole thing, Tom? He said if people don't trust reporters they won't talk to them and crimes won't get reported.
Rev. Bootie why don't you try acting like a decent human being?
Posted by: Marie Gilbert | April 24, 2010 05:38 PM
Marie because I'd rather act like myself. Come sit on my lap and I'll tell you about it.
Posted by: Rev. Bootie | May 1, 2010 04:41 AM
Learned about your site at the Pirate Faire. I saw 55% of bloggers call themselves journalists, but it looks like you're the real deal. Reporters in this area don't do anything but print what's handed to them.
Posted by: Ren Faire Bob | May 3, 2010 01:45 AM
"He communicated with several people who collected child pornography."
Why not?
Posted by: Why not? | May 18, 2010 05:51 AM