The ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that
strikes down the state statute prohibiting the recording of conversations
without permission may not be the panacea a lot of people are hoping for.
The
Chicago Tribune reports that the statute was considered among the strictest in
the Country. The Court said loud
conversations in public could not “be deemed private”, noting “…a loud argument
on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic
event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be
heard by others.”
The
case was, to no surprise, complicated and came as a result of recordings made
by Annabel Melongo who recorded three telephone conversations she had with a
court reporter supervisor at the Leighton Criminal Court Building about the
policy for correcting a hearing transcript.
Melongo was convicted and spent 20 months in Cook County Jail. Melongo also posted those recordings on the
Internet.
While
the Court’s ruling does not specifically cite the recording of telephone
conversations, you can bet that there are those people who will record anything
without asking.
And
therein lies the problem.
For
responsible citizens and journalists, the use of recording devises is a useful
backup to ensure accuracy as no one likes to be misquoted. Freedom to record does not diminish the need
for courtesy and ethics. It seems logical that a reporter, or other individual
seeking to record a conversation, would inform the interviewee – whether it’s
an in-person or phone interview. I
imagine there will be a new round of protocol for both interviewers and
interviewees.
For
interviewers, inform; for interviewees ask.
If the Court ruling does in fact cover telephone interviews, do people now
have to answer their phone “hello, please don’t record this”?
So
while people will point the finger are over-zealous interviewers, there seems to
be a possibility that some people, especially public officials, may clam up out
of fear of being recorded. Good by
transparency. At some point, in some
way, the two sides need to work together.
Responsible recorders, and for the sake of argument, journalists need to
have full disclosure from public officials no matter how the information is
being taken down – writer or recorded. Conversely,
journalists will need to follow ethical standards and not be deceitful in how
they record (written or audio) information.
The Code of Ethics for the Society of
Professional Journalists state that journalists should“…Avoid undercover or
other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional
open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such
methods should be explained as part of the story…” Quite simply, in most cases, do not be
deceitful.
At a time when there are more and
more “citizen journalists” professional journalists need to maintain or raise
the bar of ethical news gathering. A
gentle reminder that a conversation is being recorded is a great step to incorporate.
Conversely, interviewees, especially
public officials, need to recognize the need for transparency and not hide
behind a microphone.
It’s a two-way street and in the
end, it’s the news consumer who benefits the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment