If I were feeling cheeky, I might start this post by asking if you have ever sent something extremely private via cell phone or email. A secret? A nude photo, perhaps?
I won't ask, though, because then I'd be obligated to answer the question myself. (It would only be fair.)
Instead, consider the case of the Bothell High School cheerleaders. The
Seattle Post-Intelligencer leads:
Parents of two Bothell High School cheerleaders have sued the Northshore School District, alleging school officials erred when they suspended the girls from the team this year after nude photos of them circulated throughout the student body via text message.
The story goes on to reveal that action was not taken to punish, or even identify, the students who sent the pictures. One of the pictures was taken three years ago, when the girl sent a topless picture of herself to her boyfriend.
Here's the
story from CBS:
2 comments:
I think that a lot of times reporters, editors and publishers don't think about what they're publishing as private. Once it's out there it's going to be on almost every other news site and you can't be caught as the only one without it.
I think that the press has gone too far in many cases, like with the cheerleaders. I question whether the story should have been that big. I really don't think that it was necessary to show the photos especially since the girls were underage and a description of what was sent would have sufficed. I think CNN handled it better by blurring out their faces, but does it matter if you can go anywhere else and see them?
I think that sometimes the press does violate trust with using information that wasn't meant for them. If, you uncover some huge government secret or something equally big. Use the info. But for cheerleaders caught sending nude photos to their boyfriends, not quite as necessary. This violation of trust doesn't help the issues that many people already have with the press.
Good post. These are great questions and you give good consideration to the underlying issues.
Yes, the blurring of technical lines (where consumers have as much or even more equipment than reporters) does make some of the old assumptions about "on the record/off the record" a bit dicey.
And there's a fine line between a professional and paparazzi, one blurring even further with the introduction of such high-quality (and small) cameras, embedded in just about everything.
Good thoughts.
You might want to identify your voice a bit more clearly to give the reader context. You are coming from an interesting (and somewhat authoritative) position in this discussion, and you should make sure the reader understands that.
Post a Comment