ETHICS are principles that have been agreed by a group of people or professional body regarding what is right or wrong about their actions. It is largely about morality and virtues.
So, ethics are not rules that must be followed strictly, whereby failure to do so could attract punishment. Ethics simply provide a general framework to guide the conduct of professionals.
However, in real life situation, human endeavour sometimes calls for actions, which may be considered unethical, but result-oriented.
The use of secret recordings, either through tape or filming, and other subterfuge methods of gathering information by journalists is one of those thorny ethical issues that has attracted the Ghanaian public’s attention in recent times.
This is largely due to Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ secret filming on happenings at the Osu Children’s Home and the emerging story about an alleged airplay of a secret recording of Ebo Quansah’s conversation with a colleague whiles they were at the Accra International Press Centre.
These two events, particularly the latter, have led to people raising concerns over the abuse of people’s right to privacy and its impact on the wellbeing of society.
Some commentators have even suggested that the use of secret recordings by journalists creates a society of fear, where everybody is thinking that ‘big brother’ is watching over us all.
To quote Mr Larweh Therson-Cofie, in his article “The Age of Orwellian Journalism” published in the Daily Graphic of October 7, 2010, page 21: “Unapproved methods, such as use of spying and detective techniques must be avoided. Use of such methods erodes the confidence and trust that society has reposed in journalists and breeds fear and suspicion.”
He even suggests to the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) not to give recognition to investigative journalists who employ such methods, though he does not mention to what end.
Before I proceed to digest the issue regarding the usage of secret recordings by journalists, I need to allay the fear of my readers that they should not be anxious about secret recordings if they have no cobwebs in their wardrobes.
Secret recordings reveal what people do without knowing they are being recorded. So, in actual fact, secret recordings mostly tell the actual attitude of a person and therefore if your ways are not crooked, you should not fear if secret cameras have been placed in your house to film every move of yours.
This method of gathering information has existed for several years now and would continue, particularly in today’s technologically-enhanced world.
Again, there is the need to mention that many crimes are committed in secret, because that is when people feel they are not being monitored or would not be exposed. So in the name of privacy, people do the wrong things.
Now to the substantive matter, the issue of whether secret recordings are justified or appropriate in journalism brings us to the debate in philosophy as to the whether the end justifies the means or the opposite.
Some philosophers hold the opinion that the end result of an endeavour could erase any criticism about the process. For instance, there are laws that guide against illegal arrests, but those same laws make room for illegal arrests in matters where it is the only way to pick up a target, as is done in police swoops.
It is the same in journalism. Though the profession’s code of ethics, both international and local, frowns against secret recordings, there are circumstances where a secret recording is what is needed to expose a wrong and save society.
That is why, even though the 1992 Constitution has laws to protect people’s right to privacy, it also makes provision for invasion of such privacy with enough justification.
For instance, article 18 (2) of the Constitution states: “No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the protection of health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.
Indeed, one of the cardinal roles of journalists is to expose crimes by playing a watchdog role on governments and society in general. So, there are situations when it becomes prudent for a journalist to use spy methods to expose a crime for the public’s good.
The exposure may reveal various things: an intention to commit crime, a confession of a crime already committed or the process of committing a crime.
Therefore, assuming Anas’ secret recording of activities at the Osu Children’s Home was intended to expose the abuse of children, mismanagement and corruption, then the method could be justified.
What would the alternative have been as is being suggested that journalist must use approved methods. Should he have gone there to introduce himself formally and state his intention? Or he should have gone there with his camera shooting in the full view of the public.
I therefore found it amusing for the Social Welfare Director to claim that he had been to the orphanage on several occasions and seen nothing wrong at the home. How does he expect wrong to be committed is his presence, or when word goes round that he is coming.
Also, the alleged recording of Ebo Quansah’s conversation could not be faulted if the intention of the person behind it was to expose a wrong that Ebo Quansah, a renowned journalist, was allegedly engaged in. Sometimes, people expose themselves in their speech through phone calls, phone messages, emails or man-to-man talk.
Indeed, there are countless examples of how secret recordings have been used to expose crime and punish the perpetrators. The Watergate Scandal is a classical example, where secret recordings of conversations of the 37th President of the United States, Richard Nixon exposed his involvement in a crime and this led to his resignation, the only resignation ever by a US President.
Now back to the philosophers’ debate. The other group hold the opinion that the processes used to achieve an end is as important as the end. Thus, if one wants to know the HIV status of a partner and has to take the blood of the partner secretly for testing, though in the end, the desire of knowing the status of the partner would be achieved, the process used would be criminal and unacceptable.
Similarly, in journalism, secret recording, though appropriate to achieve an end, could be faulted. That is, when the person undertaking this recording fails to justify the use of the method.
In other words, the only thing that can save a person from punishment for using secret recording is to show evidence of how important the objective behind the act of recording secretly was to the public interest.
So, if the content of a secret recording undertaken by a journalist fails to produce the result for which it was undertaken, then the journalist must be wise enough to destroy the recording, because the law would not pardon him or her because of his good intentions.
Therefore, if the alleged recording of Ebo Quansah’s conversation with his friend did not expose any wrong, then it should not have been brought to the public domain.
For instance, Ebo Quansah may have expressed his opinion on a matter, but that does not make his actions criminal. So, Ebo Quansah would be rightly placed to press charges against all those involved in the recording and broadcasting.
Another caution is that, the way and manner a secret recording is done could also be punished irrespective of the end results. For instance, if one uses children to carry secret cameras, he or she may have issues with the law.
This is because it puts the child’s safety at risk. If the camera or tape was found on the child, some mistreatment could be meted out on the child.
Also, the content of a secret recording could be disputed and described as a frame up if the one with the camera plays a part in the content of the recording. His or her actions could be described as pre-conditioned and might have influenced the other(s) to act in a negative way just to set that person or group up.
To sum it up, secret recordings are not wrong in themselves, but the way and manner they are done and the intentions behind it are what is critical to justify their usage.
Let us be careful not to discourage hardworking investigative journalist who have risked their lives to expose the rot in our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment