by Pam Baker, veteran freelance journalist
(This post is in response to the onslaught of questions I have received on where I stand on the ethical issues tied to the TechCrunch/Twitter situation. For details read here: http://tinyurl.com/ltqobq then read Michael Arrington’s reaction here: http://tinyurl.com/msnlpz )
To print or not to print, that is the
question. Since the first newspaper, editors and writers have struggled with
this ethical quicksand. Now bloggers are faced with this same dilemma. Case in
point: a hacker drops private and sensitive info on Twitter’s inner workings
into TechCrunch’s inbox. The info is sent to other bloggers as well. Now
Michael Arrington says he will, indeed, publish some of the material.
That decision is unethical. Why? For
many reasons. First, for the same reason it is unethical for a pawn shop to
receive and sell stolen goods. In this case the goods are intellectual property,
they’ve been stolen, and TechCrunch will profit from publishing them. Arrington’s
rep, reader count, page views and ad revenue will likely increase from his use
of these stolen goods.
You don’t need a degree in journalism to
know Arrington’s move is wrong. Your gut has already told you this. Still, some
need to hear it said out loud, hear their own gut reaction vindicated, because
we live in an anything-goes world where one is considered a dinosaur for
holding to the old societal rules or a wuss for not being up to the game of 'me
before all else and winner takes all.'
But do we really want to live in a world
where honor and dignity are replaced with ill-gained profits and ruthless
profiteers? I don’t. And, I suspect many of you don’t either.
Secondly, TechCrunch’s decision must not
be confused with investigative journalism for it is more akin to assisted
corporate espionage after the fact; company secrets were stolen.
In investigative journalism a wrong or a
suspected wrong is investigated – usually by a team of skilled journalists –
after a whistle-blower sounds the alarm or a suspicion arises from
circumstance. Yes, anonymous sources have indeed dumped information in
journalists’ email or mail boxes. Some elect to call and disguise their voice.
But these sources report a wrong or suspicion, not simply “here look at this
juicy stuff” (unless, of course they’re calling a sleazy tabloid where the
rules of ethics seldom abide).
Journalists have faced this dilemma time
and time again. The difference is in how mainstream news media (the reputable
players anyway) make the determination of what to print or not to print versus
how Arrington made his.
The very first question reputable
reporters and editors will ask: is this news? Is this something the public has
a right to know? That’s an exceedingly important question. Ethically, the
public has the right to know anything that may affect them, their lives, their
country, their families…well, you get the idea. Does releasing Twitter’s
private information pass this basic but essential test? No, it does not. The
public is NOT affected by Twitter’s projections and future plans.
However, Twitter can be irreparably harmed
by the release. Is this ravaging damage for the public good? No, it is not. A
reputable reporter and/or editor would not have released Twitter’s information
and instead would have reported the hacking and what was stolen and left it at
that.
That probably means the newspaper or
magazine, offline or on, would not have nearly as appealing a headline this
morning as TechCrunch’s. It means once again that mainstream news media would
be mocked and ridiculed for “missing the story” or “coming with too little too
late” or “too antiquated to matter any more” or something else of that ilk.
Journalists would bear those blows, as they have for months on end now, all the
while trying to explain the decision in what undoubtedly would be labeled
largely weak and ineffectual terms.
But when did we decide as a society that
doing the right thing is a show of weakness? When did we decide that protecting
innocents from harm -- and passing on the profits that could be had from such
harm – is the wrong thing to do?
Yes, mainstream media makes mistakes and
sometimes gets it wrong. And, there are those among us that don’t pass
muster. But, we have a multi-layered system of writers, editors, editorial
boards, and publisher meetings for a reason. We have journalistic standards for
a reason.
The reason is to ensure accurate,
ethical reporting. That’s our calling and we’re sticking to it. For anything
else, you’ll need to read a tabloid or follow an ethically unencumbered
blogger.
Update: There is another point to consider. Publicity spurs bad behavior. That is why mainstream news media struggles so hard with reporting mass shootings and the like; we don't want to reward people gunning down innocents in shopping malls and schools with fame. Should we not discourage hacking in the same way?
