Audio ethics
May 8th, 2008 by Jim KillamAn interesting ethical question came up this morning when one of our reporters interviewed the university president. The reporter used a digital voice recorder, and of course asked permission to record the interview. At the end, he asked the president if he minded the Northern Star putting part of the interview online as an audio file. The president declined, and said he would have spoken differently had he known the interview might be put on the Web.
So the question is, are “print” reporters legally or ethically obligated to tell a source exactly how an audio recording might be used? My gut reaction is yes, ethically, because we’re still at a stage in journalism where if a reporter is not from a TV station or radio station, sources expect to see only a print version of the story. I’m interested in hearing other thoughts on this, though.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Journalists have an ethical duty to explain to a source how the material they collect will be used. Perhaps the way to go is to state from the start that a recorded interview may be used in text or in audio online.
The issue then is that this is likely to have an impact on the actual content of the interview, as sources may be more measured if they know a recording will be available online.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I say the journalist has no obligation to grant the source the power to dictate where his on-the-record words can be used.
I understand your point and might — might — consider it if the person being interviewed was someone not used to dealing with the media. But a university president? He’s speaking to a reporter on the record and his words are out there. He no longer owns the power to control where they are used. That they are used for print or audio shouldn’t make any difference, precisely for the reason you state.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I’m more inclined to say that we shouldn’t have to explain how the material will be published, however I think that it’s a question left up to the individual reporter.
I don’t think that the source should have a say in how the material is collected — after all the university president was asked beforehand about being recorded. Yet I feel we’re in a bit of a transition phase.
Most people who don’t use online news the way the “newer” or “younger” audiences wouldn’t expect to see a reporter (especially a student) doing something other than writing. If the radio or TV stations were there they might have different expectations.
Once the concept of a reporter/producer becomes the standard –instead of reporter/writer — I feel the problem will correct itself.
The staff at my college newspaper (scratch that, news organization) has started introducing themselves as producers from The Commuter. While we don’t have the equipment for a lot of audio or video yet I see the distinction creating an attitude in the interviewees.
They understand it’s not just about the printed product anymore.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I say YES - they are both legally and ethically obligated to tell a source exactly how an audio recording might be used - just like radio professionals are required to announce a caller is on the air - Kevin Slaten in St Louis (Fans 590) was fired for not announcing Dave Duncan was on there air (Cardinals Coach)
May 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I agree with Alfred. Sources should be informed as to how the material collected will be used. At the beginning of an interview, a journalist should remind the source what the interview is about, who it is for, and how it will be used. Indeed, if possible, get that conversation on tape. While release forms are not typically used, recording this conversation may act like a release form.