The Moldovan Journalist Code of Ethics requires the reporter to “respect people’s privacy and ask for permission to record photo/video, except if they are in a public place.” There are cases, however, when reporters seem to forget about the need to respect privacy, providing in their stories details and images that, in fact, are not information of public interest, but are inserted in order to attract as many readers as possible.
Hereinafter, we will present several such examples:
1. According to the data provided by public health specialists, this February/March Moldova was one step away from a flu epidemic. Since the beginning of the cold season, over ten persons died as a result of complications caused by respiratory tract infections, and several educational institutions were closed due to a high incidence of disease. The topic is of public interest, since in the 2009-2010 season over 40 persons in Moldova died because of the A(H1N1) flu.
As soon as the authorities announced about the first victims, media outlets published stories that revealed some of those persons’ identities. For example, on 23 February, www.realitatea.md published the article titled “Lawyer Mihai Contescu died this morning, having been infected by A(H1N1)” („Avocatul Mihai Conţescu a decedat în această dimineaţă fiind infectat cu A(H1N1)”). Mihai Contescu was especially known due to defending several police officers suspected of torture in the court case related to the events of 7 April 2009, so the disclosure of his identity might be justified. However, the photos and videos illustrating the news about his death are not justified. For example, reporters published the photo in his ID card, which is a personal document, and its demonstration proves nothing and gives no added value to the information in the story.
Also, the material contains a short video in which the employees of a funeral service company carried the body on a stretcher. The video is not accompanied by an explanation, and its inclusion raises a moral issue. The problem is that the ID card is intended for private use, and the video in which the victim is taken out of the house is not of public interest.
In such cases, the Guidelines of Good Practices for Online Media, published by the Independent Journalism Center, recommends: “If you have a video, photo, or some other material that might generate traffic, you should contact the persons involved and ask for their permission. If you fail to obtain it, you may write about this story without revealing anything. The most important is that the material be of public interest. Otherwise, its publication is not justified”.
2. In another case, on 3 March 2015, reporters of www.unimedia.info published the story titled “An individual caught during the rape of a woman on the bank of River Bic” („Un individ, prins în timp ce viola o femeie pe malul râului Bâc”). The story tells about “a 21-year-old man who was caught in the act of having sexual intercourse with a 31-year-old woman against her will.”
The version that can now be found on the website is different from the initial story. (The initial version can be viewed in the picture attached to this study.) Initially, reporters mentioned in the story that the victim was from the village of Cornesti in the district of Ungheni—information that is not of public interest, but could harm the victim. The village of Cornesti has a little over two thousand residents, so it is quite a small locality, in which people know each other, and the victim could be easily identified.
According to the Guidelines on Style containing Ethical Norms for journalists, edited by the Association of Independent Press, “reporters shall avoid disclosure of victims’ identities, especially those of victims of sexual violence. (…) The impact of such situations on the victim’s personal life is enormous, and it should not be deepened by bringing their identity to public knowledge. Also, one shall not reveal details (names, addresses, place of residence, parents’ and relatives’ names, etc.) that might lead to the identification of victims.”
The initial story posted by the Unimedia portal raised a wave of discontent on social networks. Users were outraged by the manner in which the story was written. Here is one of the users’ comments: “The Moldovan journalists’ code of ethics says that ‘Journalists shall not disclose the identity of the victims of accidents, natural disasters, crimes, especially sexual violence.’ And, as I know, it doesn’t mean only the name, but also the locality that the person originates from or any other detail that might make the victim’s identification easier. I understand the need to seek sensations, but it doesn’t mean that we can publish whatever we find out from the police. Such cases, unfortunately, have been very many lately.”
The website’s administration took note of the fact and the story was soon replaced. In the updated version, the village that the victim comes from was not mentioned.
3. In another case, the same news portal published a video from the website of the Civil Protection and Emergencies Service. The institution announced that a 65-year-old woman needed the help of the Search and Rescue Detachment no. 1 to be taken out of her own apartment. The woman was obese, and doctors couldn’t take her to the hospital because her transportation was impossible due to excess weight.
This story, accompanied by a video, was published by very many media outlets, but some of them blurred the victim’s face. It was not the case of Unimedia, which left the video as it had been offered to the press by the Civil Protection Service.
Certainly, the first to violate the person’s right to privacy and dignity was the Civil Protection Service. True, they did a good thing by helping the woman to get out of the apartment that she hadn’t left for four years and to reach the hospital. But was it really necessary to show her face?
When they decided to present the video without blurring the woman’s face, Unimedia reporters violated the Moldovan Journalist Code of Ethics, according to which “journalists must respect people’s right to privacy and dignity. Journalists shall respect people’s privacy and ask for permission to record photo/video, except if they are in a public place.” Blurring of the face would have been a good solution to this dilemma.
In conclusion: Journalists should take into consideration that private persons have to a greater extent the right to privacy than famous people or officials. Often, in the race for sensations, they forget about one of the basic journalistic rules: “news must not do harm.” Thus, interference is allowed only when the public interest of revealing facts prevails over the protection of a person’s image.
Astăzi nu există evenimente
Ro
En
Рy