Compassion and Privacy

Compassion goes a long way in journalism, and should be emphasized more than it is. I have been on the receiving end of tragic news when I lost my best friend to a plane crash in Afghanistan. One reporter who called badgered my friend and me with questions only a couple hours after we found out what had happened. Another reporter--one who waited until the next day to call--approached my friend and I with a sympathetic tone, and we actually talked to him because of that. The first reporter got a mouthful of angry words and a hangup.

I think we can not only be better human beings but also better journalists if we drum up some compassion for the subjects of our stories. The same is true for privacy; journalists don't always have to name names in order to publish an important story.

The rules differ a bit when dealing with a public figure, most notably a politician and/or celebrity. (Of course, this delineation of who exactly counts as a 'public figure' can get muddled, as we have discussed in class before.) Compassion still counts, but privacy can be more difficult to maintain. There tends to be more interest in public figures' lives, so a story that wouldn't be newsworthy for an ordinary citizen would certainly be newsworthy for a public figure.

For example, Massachusetts State Senator Anthony Galluccio made the news today when a police report publicized his brush with the law last month regarding two incidents: driving while intoxicated and crashing into another car the very next day (full story here). Little has been published about the story, and Galluccio isn't admitting much at this point.

While I do feel he deserves just as much compassion as any citizen, I think any 'breach of privacy' claim he makes is less valid. As a public figure--a state lawmaker, even--he gives up a certain amount of privacy over his public actions. He is paid with taxpayer money, and citizens deserve the right to know how their politicians conduct themselves publicly.