Letter to the Editor: On journalism, privacy and concerns for modern reporting
Ohio State students walk through campus as they protest for the second time this month, Thursday Sept. 17, 2020 | Photo By Steven Thomas
By: Brooke Butler
Many protestors and protestor sympathizers have expressed feelings of alarm and betrayal regarding The Lantern’s handling of requests for privacy when reporting on the recent protests at The Ohio State University.
Two protests were organized by students of the Black community at OSU who felt that a Public Safety Notice (PSN) involving an allegedly race-based crime involving black perpetrators and white victims was communicated in such a way that put Black students at risk for unwarranted retaliation.
The Lantern, whose attempts to cover stories of campus life are met with the utmost integrity, decided to publish the names, ranks, and majors of participants of the protest despite receiving explicit requests for privacy. The Editor-in-Chief, Sam Raudins, wrote a letter in response to these concerns. I argue that her response is inappropriate for the realities of our current time.
From my understanding, policies prohibiting photo manipulation most likely stemmed from old age practices of analog photography. Censorship required physical manipulation and concerns of that time prioritized integrity of the story over privacy. However, photojournalists of our time must contend with the new ethical concerns that their predecessors did not: Facial Recognition Technologies (FRT) and the sinister misuse of public information like online profiles.
These new technologies have left individuals with reduced control over their own privacy and have placed people at great risk. A person’s entire history and a great deal of their societal associations are easily discoverable, even those with no relevance to the issue at hand.
Even information can be weaponized and used to harm protestors. To continue publishing the faces, names, majors, and grades of the students expressing dissent in a public way puts those protestors at risk.
Expressing dissent on matters of crucial and passion associated issues like race endangers dissenting individuals, especially since racial tensions are elevated due to the momentum of the BLM movement and the upcoming election. This could lead many to be barred from participation in society— a denial of opportunities for jobs, internships, and in more serious cases, protestors could even become targets for violence.
Blurring faces protects the students from both violence and the future ramifications of being publicly outspoken. Please, use your power or publication wisely and consider updating your policies to match the ethical needs of this time.
Regarding the use of identifying information, I argue that the inclusion of unrelated personal identifiers is not needed to maintain journalistic integrity. You can remain staunch toward truth without compromising the privacy of those exercising their first amendment rights. Excluding identifying markers (faces, names, majors, and grades) does not undermine the veracity of the story since such information fails to provide any essential details for the piece.
Journalists blur out faces, or use pseudonyms to tell controversial stories all the time. Honor the requests of those you are covering, especially if their safety could be compromised as a result.
Another rationale for not blurring faces is that it provides a more complete story for future historians. Reporters for The Lantern are deeply aware of their recording place in history.
Raudins illuminates, “We want the message of these groups to be heard, and we want Ohio State students, faculty, staff and alumni to look back at The Lantern archives 100 years from now and understand what these times were like." Yet, even historians can understand the gist of the story without knowing that this or that student was a third year in mechanical engineering.
While I understand we have a strong sense of historical accuracy, privacy today and protecting people of today from harm should be our priority. But where should we draw the line when reporting identifying information?
Raudins defended her team’s commitment to equitable reporting, expressing: "We will report them [stories] accurately and fairly, and will uphold the same standard for every group that assembles on our campus." Further, she states, “By granting anonymity in this form, it might lead other groups, anywhere, with any message to request the same."
Raudins obviously understands her responsibility in keeping the public informed with fair, balanced reporting that holds all groups engaged in public work accountable for their actions; however, she attempted to address a complex issue with a black and-white solution.
If an organized group of demonstrators are truly being violent and their actions threaten public safety, some identifying information might be relevant; however, in this case, names, major, and year were not essential to the piece. An interviewee’s request for privacy should also be respected, especially if the respondent has a reasonable concern for their safety.
Again, while I understand The Lantern’s commitment to truthfulness when storytelling, I urge the organization to reconsider which policies are truly useful today and which can be retired. The way our images and information are disseminated has graver, farther reaching consequences than ever before. Consent should be obtained and honored as it is in the scientific community as well as HIPPA, and FERPA. Inform the interviewees of their rights and give them a say in how the data is used.
In the end, times are changing, and maybe The Lantern’s photography and journalism ethics should too.
Brooke Butler is a fourth-year Morrill Scholar with Distinction at The Ohio State University, passionate about both education and ethics.