Forrest Carr, news director at
WFTX-TV in Cape Coral, Fla., and a 2002 Poynter Ethics Fellow, shares his take on the Rebecca Aguilar interview and the ethical and legal implications of interviews that involve what could be considered "surreptitious reporting." We invite our readers to weigh in with their own thoughts on these issues.
Tenore: What are your thoughts on the Rebecca Aguilar video?
Carr: My thoughts are that her conduct toward the shooter was not as her critics described it. Her words were polite. Her demeanor was professional. Her questions, which set off the critics, were for the most part appropriate. The main thing I saw that troubled me was that the guy told her that he would talk to her but not on camera. The photographer took the camera out of his face, but kept rolling. I also think that her choice of the phrase "trigger happy," while contained in a question that needed to be asked, was not the best choice in that it's one of those red-letter, emotion-laden phrases. It's certainly appears to be the main flashpoint for the accusations of bias that erupted.
Tenore: Do you think the idea of "surreptitious reporting" is a factor to consider here?
Carr: Definitely. There are legal and ethical issues to consider. The guy clearly stated that he was willing to talk only if the camera was not on. It's not clear from the tape exactly what happened next, but the guy kept talking, and the camera kept rolling, but off to the side. Did the reporter have a duty to tell the guy, "We're still rolling?" It's kind of similar to what happens when an interview subject says, "OK, I'll tell you, but this is off the record" -- and then keeps on talking, without waiting for an acknowledgment.
Technically speaking, if the reporter doesn't agree out loud to go off the record, then it's not off the record. But does the reporter have an affirmative duty to say, "Wait a second, before you say another word, I need to let you know that we are not off the record"? Different journalists may answer that question differently. But the audience, for the most part, expects us to play fair. If we knowingly allow someone to proceed from a false assumption, then a lot of people would say that we're being deceptive. The public doesn't like that, for the most part. So, if you do it, fine, but be willing to explain to the public why you did that and why it was appropriate. And be willing to accept the consequences if public opinion turns against you.
There's also a legal issue to consider here. The guy asked not to be on camera. If the camera remains on, but in such a way as for that not to be obvious to the person being interviewed, then the case could be made that this amounts to use of a hidden camera and hidden microphone. Wiretapping statutes, which vary from place to place, could then come into play.
In some states, it's not legal to surreptitiously record audio in a situation where there otherwise would be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which, of course, begs the question: what places are not considered private? A public street corner is on one end of the privacy spectrum, with a person's own bedroom being on the other, with almost everything else lying in the gray areas in between.
Tenore: The man being interviewed asked Aguilar to turn off the camera. When that happens in an on-camera interview, what would you suggest to be a good, ethical response?
Carr: I would state, plainly, words to the effect of: "With all due respect, we really want to hear from you, but your comments need to be on the record, and we are not stopping the camera." If the interview subject continues to speak, then no one can accuse you of deception. On the other hand, you could lose the interview. As an alternative, you could simply keep the camera up, and the microphone out, clearly still in use. The idea of recording, while giving the opposite impression, is what some could call sneaky.
Tenore: At what point do you think reporters should draw the line between what is and isn't appropriate for the air?
Carr: Well, as was famously pointed out in the movie Broadcast News, there is a line, but they move that sucker every day. The main thing is to think it out in advance -- preferably seeking outside input, and using Bob Steele's multi-step process for
ethical decision making -- then be ready, willing and able to explain and defend your actions to your colleagues, to the stakeholders, and to the public.
Tenore: How can TV reporters juggle that balance between being aggressive, but not too offensive or obtrusive, in their reporting?
Carr: Offensive and intrusive are two very different concepts, although they often go together.
Offensiveness is an easier subject to tackle. Be polite. Don't raise your voice unless you are shouting over background noise. Don't get up in someone's face with your face, hands, or news-gathering equipment. Don't chase anyone at a pace faster than a brisk walk. Use emotion-laden words, phrases, epithets, and so on only with the greatest of care and consideration. Intrusiveness is more difficult.
The main thing is to remember your journalistic purpose -- and yes, you should have one. The purpose is not, "Get the blockbuster interview or get fired." The purpose really needs to be framed in some way that serves the viewer, reader or online user. In the case of a family grieving from the loss of a loved one killed in an accident or crime, for instance, your purpose might be to help the audience understand the hole that the loss of that life has torn in the tapestry of the community.
In the case of the shooter in the Aguilar case, perhaps there's an accountability angle: Viewers have a right to understand whether the shootings were appropriate. On a larger scale, they also have a right to know whether the new state law that appears to legalize such shootings is good public policy. And then you frame your questions that way.
Tenore: What kinds of other questions do you think journalists and news directors should ask when trying to determine whether or not something should run?
Carr: What is our journalistic purpose? Does this story serve that purpose? Are we seeking and telling the truth, while minimizing harm and acting independently? And here is a very important question that is often, perhaps usually, overlooked: Are we willing to hold ourselves accountable to the public for our conduct? These last four points, as I'm sure you'll recognize, are right out of the Society of Professional Journalists'
code of ethics.
