Media Ethics

Ethics of Reporting Undercover

By Kwanwoo Jun

  

Introduction:

             It is an irony. Journalists often have to deceive others in order to get the truth. One common deceptive practice is reporting undercover. They impersonate someone else. Without deception, they might fail in work.

Reporters often pose as a patient to cast light on rights abuses or ill treatment at a mental hospital or perhaps newsmen might become a worker for an in-depth report on miserable working conditions at a sweatshop.

             But most mainstream media outlets are reluctant to employ surreptitious tactics of gathering information. They tend to use deception as a last means only when there is no other alternative way to seek the truth.

             So, journalists are required to present firm ethical grounds for going undercover, and this term paper aims to draft a code of ethics on undercover reports for a newswire company that I have to return in two years.

Issue:

             The first time I detected this problem was two years ago. I was assigned to cover the cyclone-hit Myanmar. I was told to sneak into the military-ruled nation as a tourist and work undercover.

             During my 10-day mission, I posed as a tourist or a relief worker when meeting news sources. I kept my job secret to work safely while feeling ethically uncomfortable. But I admit the safety issue overshadowed the ethics issue.

This year, I took a class of Law and Mass Communication and came to think back of my work in Myanmar from an ethical viewpoint.

Presented to the class was a case of ABC’s PrimeTime Live show versus Food Lion. Using hidden cameras and lying about identity, ABC reporters were able to divulge Food Lion’s re-labeling of rotten meat to sell as fresh.

The TV network was later sued for huge damages over deception, but there seemed pretty strong public support for what ABC did: a tiny trick for a greater good.

             But I’ve found that not all of the journalistic deception gets public support. In 1996, Newsweek’s Joe Klein lied for months about his authorship of a best-selling book “Primary Colors” as a part of his marketing strategy.

             Klein’s deception or anonymity outraged the public.

As to journalistic deception, H. Eugene Goodwin and Ron F. Smith (1994) listed three types: 1) Active deception: staged events and hidden cameras. 2) Misrepresentation: impersonating non-reporters. 3) Passive deception: allowing themselves to be taken for non-reporters.

Seow Ting Lee’s doctoral thesis (2002) “Lying to Tell the Truth: Journalists and the Ethics of Deception” recommends that “the focus should be on how to deceive ethically” rather than on how to stop journalists from lying.

Interests:

In terms of pragmatism, deception can wonderfully serve journalists by helping them effectively get information from evasive sources. It may sometimes be the best way to achieve the journalistic goal of telling the truth.

But the moment they choose dishonest methods of gathering news information, journalists should keep in mind that they could infringe on others’ interests.

In the case of the Food Lion scandal, ABC’s undercover work unquestionably caused a setback in sales to the food retail store chain for a while.

             Third-party people, fooled by hidden cameras or other deceptive tools, may also suffer harms. They can probably undergo a sense of betrayal, unwanted publicity or disadvantages at work due to journalists’ undercover work.

             Journalistic deception may also build up public distrust in news organizations. The risk of losing public trust is so disastrous that media outlets take extraordinary care before relying on surreptitious methods of getting information.

Case For and Against:

             Various policy options exist when it comes to deception. Mainstream media organizations still like integrity in gathering news information.

The reality, however, is that if we enforce a ban on deception very strictly, we may blow up a great opportunity to tell the truth. If we enforce the ban very loosely, we may undermine our credibility and morality.

             The Washington Post adopts a strict rule against deception. “In gathering news, reporters will not misrepresent their identity,” the Post’s code of ethics says. “They will not identify themselves as police officers, physicians or anything other than journalists.” The Post had no comments on the “passive” deception.

             The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is more flexible than the Post in allowing deception. “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public,” SPJ’s code of ethics says. “Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.”

             The New York Times requires its editorial staff to disclose their identity when they seek information normally available to the public. “Staff members may not pose as police officers, lawyers, business people or anyone else when they are working as journalists,” the Times says in its code of ethics. But it added the following sentence in a bracket: “As happens on rare occasions, when seeking to enter countries that bar journalists, correspondents may take cover from vagueness and identify themselves as traveling on business or as tourists.”

             The Poynter Institute suggests that journalists go through the following checklist before considering using hidden cameras and other forms of misrepresentation.

             1. When the information obtained is of profound importance. It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great “system failure” at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.

             2. When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted.

             3. When the journalists involved are willing to disclose the nature of the deception and the reason for it.

             4. When the individuals involved and their news organization apply excellence, through outstanding craftsmanship as well as the commitment of time and funding needed to pursue the story fully.

             5. When the harm prevented by the information revealed through deception outweighs any harm caused by the act of deception.

             6. When the journalists involved have conducted a meaningful, collaborative, and deliberative decision-making process.

Recommendation:

             Now I recommend the following code of ethics.

             “Journalists should always try to be honest with their identity. They should have full discussions with senior editors and lawyers before going undercover. The act of deception should help the entire society change for the better. The act should not be personally motivated. The nature and reason of the deception should be made public as part of the story. Any violations of the policy are subject to a punishment on which a disciplinary committee should determine.”

             In my recommendation, I try to give a terse policy because the simpler the message is, the powerful it is. It tends to be difficult to remember a lengthy and detailed statement when it comes to a code of ethics.

             I also avoid imposing a total ban on deception at work because journalists may sometimes have to lie inevitably. But I stressed the importance of journalists trying to be honest with their identity. To “always try to be honest with their identity” means that they try all other alternatives before using deception.

My policy also did not try to list all concrete cases where journalists may or may not pose as someone else because it is simply impossible to enumerate them all. After all, the policy is a matter of application.

             Instead, I make it mandatory for journalists to discuss the issue of deception in advance with senior editors and legal experts. That’s how they can prevent or minimize any negative impact that the deceptive ways of gathering information may have on sources, readers, journalists themselves and news media organizations.

             I also make it clear that the purpose of deception is to do good to society, not journalists themselves.

             Finally, my recommended policy calls for transparency in deception at work. It requires journalists or media organizations to explain why and how they had to lie to their clients afterwards. I believe that this is the way we, journalists or news media, can maintain a healthy level of morality and thus public trust.

              

Bibliography

1.      Russ W. Baker (July, 1993). Truth, Lies, and Videotape. Columbia Journalism Review

2.      ABC’s PrimeTime Live show (on November 5, 1992) video clip

3.      Seow Ting Lee (August 2002). Lying to Tell the Truth: Journalists and the Ethics of Deception

4.      Goodwin, G., & Smith, R.F. (1994). Groping for ethics in journalism. Iowa State University Press

5.      The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics

6.      The Washington Post’s Code of Ethics

7.      The New York Times, Ethical Journalism (A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments)

8.      Bob Steele, (Feb. 1, 1995). Deception/Hidden Cameras Checklist. PoynterOnline

9.      The Toronto Star (October 9, 2010). The ethics of going undercover (opinion)

Undercover in Myanmar

By Kwanwoo Jun

       SUNNYSIDE, New York - This is about my traumatic experience I have rarely shared with others so far.

       I was assigned to cover the cyclone-hit Myanmar during the summer two years ago. The mission was for me to sneak into the military-ruled Southeast Asian nation “as a tourist” and report on the disaster undercover as long as possible.

The Myanmar government then imposed a strict media blackout in a bid to cover up its incompetent crisis management. It banned Western journalists from entering the country but issued tourist visas to Asians like me.

“You don’t have to go if you don’t want to,” my editor told me. “But it’s true that the company needs someone there to cover the story that is growing bigger.”

   The editor warned me of the possible danger of journalists being detained and repatriated home by the Myanmar authorities for reporting undercover.

After all, I decided to go and spent 10 days in Myanmar.

INSOMNIA & PARANOIA

    In Myanmar, I suffered from severe insomnia and paranoia.

In bed at night, I often dreamed of being caught or jailed. Traveling around the suburban areas of Yanggon, I always felt like being followed by someone secretly.

   Adding to my paranoia was editors’ repeated warning against using local telephone lines, which were tapped for sure. They also told me to exercise a maximum amount of caution when I used my laptop-sized satellite phone. The equipment was always hidden in the ceiling of my hotel room when not in use.

   My heart was always pounding thunderously during the satellite transmissions of stories. Extreme fear, anxiety and nervousness haunted me. On hearing any footsteps on the hallway outside my hotel room, I would cut off satellite transmissions halfway.

MISERY

I felt increasingly depressed by reporting on the miserable and destitute conditions in which Myanmar people – dead, sick or alive – were thrown. They were all abandoned and unattended despite an acute need for help.

I often felt anger to see the government do nothing. People were dying. Some of them I interviewed were shivering in cold, crouching and sleeping in rain. Kids suffered from hunger but severe diarrhea due to little food and contaminated water.

I began seeing dead bodies floating in the river. Editors always wanted me to try to go deeper into the cyclone-hit delta region, hoping to check if thousands of dead bodies were still unattended as claimed by local civic groups.

But armed soldiers already sealed off the area.

PANIC

Tips often came into my ears that some journalists had been in police custody after trying to sneak into the delta area. I myself witnessed a Western journalist was singled out from a crowd of locals on a bus heading for the area.

After a week or so, I got also caught - for the second time - loitering around the area. I was panic. There was something different in the air.  Police took me to a nearby police station. Police radioed a message to somewhere. A plainclothes military officer showed up and intensively interrogated me for about an hour. Two armed soldiers were with him.

The officer kept asking me what I had been doing there, and I kept claiming that I, a tourist, had gone astray there. He took my passport, recorded detailed information on me and took a few mug shots of me as if he handles a criminal.

I was scared that I might be detained. All I could do was nervously fumbling with a small paper note inscribed with a phone number of the consulate in my pocket.

Luckily, I was released from their custody. I received my passport back but also a warning that I would be in jail if I get caught once again. After changing my hotels several times in the next few days, I managed to get out of the country at dawn.

MEMORY BACK TO LIFE

I’m not sure how much my experience in Myanmar had affected (or traumatized) me. I’ve reported no major problem working afterwards. But I have to admit that some of the experiences remain strong in my mind and never get away. They sometimes come back to me in grim visuals and dreary feelings for no particular reason.