Online media, privacy issues and ‘journalistic enterprise’

On September 25, Grace Amme “feeling pained” posted on her wall the following: “The story of the 15 year old girl who was defiled and impregnated by her teacher is the kind that should have Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) come out and put every media house publishing this in check. A journalist who has been to journalism school should be aware of the basic provisions on privacy. For one to write a story detailing the school, class and father of the victim making them easily identifiable is a gross form of misconduct and negligence of one’s duty and should be punished.”

None of the NMG-Uganda platforms published this story – online or offline – in part because the editorial policy guidelines are well grounded to guide editors in cases such as this. I shall refer to two provisions which state hence:
Protection of children: Children should not be identified in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims, witnesses or defendants. In particular, a TV broadcast, that for reasons of completeness cannot avoid using footage where such children are a central theme, must use every trick in the book to mask their identities.

Victims of sex crimes: The media should not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification. Such exposure does not serve any legitimate journalistic or public interest and may bring social opprobrium to the victims and social embarrassment to their relations, family, friends, community or religious order to which they belong. Editors have a moral obligation to ensure they leave no margin whatsoever that could lead to the identification of such victims.”
*****

However, many online only news sites distributed through social media as a well as a local language daily published the story in lurid details, some even making political connotations. These stories breached three cardinal principles (of journalism ethics and law). The first breach was the right to privacy, second the responsibility to protect minors, and third, protection of innocent third parties.
While the law on privacy is provided for under Article 27 of the Uganda Constitution, it is very broad and focuses mostly on property, data, communications and body or property search. The journalists must, therefore, derive guidance in covering stories such as this from the professional code of ethics and established international industry practice.

Unfortunately, the code of ethics as provided in the Press and Journalist Act (1995) makes no specific mention of the right to privacy vs the public’s right to know – the two contending ideas journalist often have to grapple with every day. This gap is, however, filled by the moribund Independent Media Council of Uganda [that was] championed by veteran journalist Haruna Kanabi who bequeathed a wonderful professional code of ethics. It states thus:

“The public’s right to know often needs to be weighed vis-à-vis the privacy rights of people in the news. Intrusion and inquiries into an individual’s private life without the person’s consent are not generally acceptable unless public interest is indisputably involved. Public interest must itself be legitimate and not merely based upon prurient or morbid curiosity. Things concerning a person’s home, family, religion, tribe, health, sexuality or sexual orientation, personal life and private affairs are covered by the concept of privacy excepting where these impinge or can reasonably be presumed to impinge upon the public well-being.”

Were the offending journalists aware of this? Perhaps yes, perhaps not! Or did they imagine freedom of the press is absolute?
An article by Louis Brandeis (who later became a US Supreme Court judge) in the Harvard Law Review (1890), quoted by Shirley Sherrod (Communication Law and Ethics), explains well why journalists should pay attention to privacy of news subjects.

Brandeis argued then that “the right to privacy does not prohibit publication of matters in the public interest, but should protect private people from becoming ‘victims of journalistic enterprise’.” He argued further that “although truth would be a defense in libel, truth or falsehood is not the issue.
‘The right of privacy implies the right not merely to prevent inaccurate portrayal of private life, but to prevent its being depicted at all’.” Clearly here, the little girl and her father were victims of “journalistic enterprise!”