This article originally appeared in the September 1997 issue of Communicator.

The question comes up in just about every workshop I lead at television stations: "So, ethics guy, what do you think about hidden cameras? How can you justify lying?"

No doubt many journalists suspect I will condemn hidden cameras as tools of deceit. To be sure, I believe we misuse hidden cameras, and it concerns me greatly when we use any form of deception in our reporting.

That said, I don't suggest we ban hidden cameras. We just need to be much more judicious and responsible in deciding when and how to use them.

Too often we use hidden cameras poorly, even on stories where they are justified. But I still want the weapon in my arsenal. There are times when using hidden cameras may be the only way to effectively tell an important story about a significant issue.

The best of hidden camera reporting has exposed systemic racial discrimination, critical weaknesses in airport security, gross incompetence by law enforcement officers and abhorrent patient care in nursing homes and hospitals. Unfortunately, those moments are outweighed by the glut of hidden camera stories focusing on small scale consumer problems, "gotcha" pieces and weak investigative reports that don't justify deception.

Hidden cameras are not unlike weapons and power tools that should be kept away from the unskilled and the reckless. When truly, needed, hidden cameras should be put in the hands of skilled journalists who know their great potential and recognize their significant possibilities for harm

The "Importance" Threshold

Let's face it. Most hidden camera reporting involves some level of deception, and deception is about causing someone to believe what is not true. Since we are in the business of pursuing truth, there is more than a hint of hypocrisy when we use some form of deceit to pursue the truth.

We can only justify that inconsistency and the use of deception when we truly serve a greater principle. Therein lies the first standard for deciding when it is appropriate to use hidden cameras.

To justify deception we must be pursuing very important information. It must be of vital public interest, such as preventing profound harm to individuals or revealing great system failure at the top levels. Sure, there is subjectivity in those words, but the spirit of this standard is clear when we say "vital," "profound," "great" and "top."

We must set the bar high, resisting the temptation to use hidden cameras (or any form of misrepresentation) on those stories that don't meet this test. If we don't, we can't support the claim that the quest for truth outweighs the use of deception. Furthermore, we cheapen the value and diminish the impact of hidden cameras when we use them on stories of less importance.

Tools of Last Resort

Because they involve deception, hidden cameras should be our last choice for reporting a story. It is appropriate to consider their use on

stories where we have ruled out all other alternatives for obtaining the same information.

We must exhaust traditional reporting methods of interviewing, observing and researching documents and databases.

High-Powered Weapons

Issues of fairness are heightened when we accuse someone of wrongdoing through the use of hidden camera video. This covert method of newsgathering clearly amplifies any accusations we make. We also must recognize the effects of hidden camera reporting on others in the story who are less culpable or not involved in the wrongdoing.

Hidden camera video carries extra weight both in its ability to reveal important truths and in its potential to cause great harm. Hidden cameras are high-powered weapons only to be used with supreme care.

High-Risk Work

A journalist working undercover may have to make split-second decisions that carry high stakes. His professional role as a news gatherer may be in conflict with his responsibility as a human being to help a vulnerable person. When should a photographer give up his cover to help someone who is in great pain? When should a reporter warn someone who is endangered by the actions she is observing? What does a journalist do when she sees someone commit a felony?

In addition, newsroom managers must minimize risk for the journalists who use hidden cameras or who report undercover. Their personal safety may be jeopardized if their cover is blown or their covert methods revealed. Guidelines should be discussed ahead of time. Should a journalist tell additional lies to keep an undercover ruse going? What does the journalist do if he must break a law to protect his identity?

Hidden camera and undercover reporting require strong planning by news managers and all participating journalists. We must anticipate what might go wrong, minimize risks and develop back-up plans, including ones for quick intervention in serious problems.

To be sure, we also must pay close attention to the legal land mines in hidden camera reporting. We can develop sound strategies that recognize matters of defamation and privacy, including false light and intrusion standards. We can be vigorous in our reporting if we are clear on the law regarding fraud, trespass and surreptitious recording of audio. The law protects citizens. It also gives journalists considerable freedom to serve the public. We should use it wisely.

Skilled Reporting

We must be at our best and smartest when we use hidden cameras, because the stakes are high. We must supplement the surreptitious video with insightful observations, seeing and retaining important details of a scene that might not be captured by the camera.

We can heighten accuracy and authenticity by both gathering the right facts and making sure our facts are right. We must put information in proper context and present it clearly so the viewers can understand. We must put our "camera less. reporting skills to work to see nuances of difference in the actions and words of story subjects. We must be adept at judging tones of voice and degrees of misdeed.

In using hidden cameras or going undercover, we must devote time and attention to testing our assumptions. We are after the truth, and validity and reliability are the product of multiple pieces of proof.

We must focus our attention on those who are really responsible for the wrongdoing we expose, not just the "little guy" who happens to be easily reached with our hidden camera. Too many hidden cameras stories stop with the video of the store clerk, the mechanic, the teaching assistant or the nurses' aide. Too few stories get to the owners, top-level officials and administrators often responsible for the wrongdoing.

Journalists Only

Yes, I've heard those arguments about how ABC could have sidestepped the legal matters of fraud in the Food Lion case by having supermarket employees do the hidden camera taping. That, I believe, is a very shortsighted argument.

It would take an exceptional case to convince me to use a non journalist to shoot video in an undercover story. Meat cutters, repairmen, high school students and home buyers are not trained in the art of journalistic observation. They should not be entrusted with our job or our tools. Furthermore, these nonjournalists may have vested interests in the story or personal motives that directly conflict with the role of reporting and the standards of professionalism.

The Bottom Line

Hidden camera and undercover reporting can produce memorable and meaningful journalism. That happens when we are at our very best, from the moment we start the planning, through the execution to the telling of the story on air.

Set the bar very high for the ethics and excellence of your work. Don't settle for anything less.