Subscribe to my Feed
« You need to see Cousteau’s dive into the Gulf oil spill | Home | When it comes to disaster prevention, hope is not a strategy »
So, how ethical are those “gotcha” journalists?
By Lauren | May 28, 2010
We’re taking a break from my Friday series on keeping your business out of court to talk about a question that’s been troubling me for a while. Earlier this week, I wrote about Duchess of York Sara Ferguson’s tacky efforts to profit from her personal connection to her former husband, Prince Andrew of Britain. Seems Her Grace offered to sell access to her ex for about $723,000 to a reporter who posed as a wealthy sheik to set her up. A hidden camera caught it all, the reporter gleefully broke the story, and the duchess was appropriately mortified when her questionable ethics were exposed to international scrutiny.
But just how ethical was the reporter who set Fergie up to fall?
Incidents like this one seem to be happening with increasing frequency. The National Inquirer is still strutting about beating more mainstream papers to the punch by exposing former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards’ illicit relationship with the mother of his out-of-wedlock daughter. Tabloid reporters followed Tiger Woods’ mistresses around the world until his story broke. Hidden cameras, secret stakeouts, and bribes to those who’ve seen more than they should are the investigative reporter’s stock in trade when it comes to celebrity scandal. It’s probably fun for the reporters to be able to engage in cloak-and-dagger maneuvers while developing a story, and there’s nothing like a juicy tale of somebody famous behaving badly to boost subscriptions.
The reporters who snoop into the private misdeeds of the rich and famous argue that they’re doing a public service by exposing those who profit wrongly from their fans’ adulation. When it comes to elected officials, they may have a point. What we learned about John Edwards has something to say about his character. Would American voters want him as Vice President, knowing what we know now? Almost certainly not.
When it comes to people who are famous just for being who they are, however, the line between legitimate whistleblowing and deceitful entrapment may not be as clear. Sara Ferguson shouldn’t be selling introductions to her ex, but reporters shouldn’t be dressing up in elaborate costumes and preying on the weaknesses of divorced single mothers, either. She’s clearly desperate for money, and preying on anyone’s desperation is an ugly thing. If the reporter who went after the Duchess of York couldn’t get his story except by deceit, maybe he shouldn’t have tried to get it at all.
Topics: Business Ethics, Professional Ethics, ethics |
May 29th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Good point. I think it speaks to the voyeurism rampant in media consumption. This kind of stuff seems to sell very well. “Reality” shows, celebrity “news” and the like are exceptionally popular. I don’t understand the fascination with things so meaningless to normal people’s existence. That there are folks out there with the moral and ethical compass to feed this fascination is not surprising. I wish the interest to view and the willingness to provide would greatly diminish.