Part III
Existing Controversial Dilemma
Introduction
Veteran’s Day comes and goes as it always does. As does the news cycle. Each day out of the week local reporters and their technical teams wander around the their local vicinity looking for a scoop. That is their business afforded to them by the First Amendment. But on Veteran's Day, and other holidays that are set aside to honor military service, how can we justify an exception to the equal privacy right protection -- a right afforded to every American -- because certain veteran's currently live in a facility earmarked for veterans who may not be having the best of luck in their current situation. As discussed in this handbook in the preceding parts, the right to privacy is considered a "natural law," afforded within the case laws demonstrated in Part I. It is also an ethically acceptable conclusion to the basic concepts of truth and the cannons of journalistic integrity, as demonstrated in Part II of this handbook. Digital technology allows avenues of privacy violations, but it does not make it legal or ethical. The First Amendment does not usurp the right to privacy, as has been clearly established in this handbook.
​
The defense of First Amendment protections over privacy rights can only take place in two forms -- consent or newsworthiness. While consent makes the gray areas of this handbook a much easier mechanism to handle, it is still important that those veteran's be given a chance to make an educated assessment of that consent given. In addition, with the ease that digital imagery -- still or video -- can be obtained; it is an important issue to be handled by a facility PR representative trained in the issues addressed in this handbook. And that is this handbook's purpose. While legal precedents do serve as a guide, ultimately as technology continues to progress; we are guided more by our ethics than the law. For those reasons this handbook once again proposed the philosophy of
Louis W. Hodges, who has stated;
​
A conflict of interest…exists when a journalist’s professional (and professed) duty to serve audience interest is weakened … by a journalist’s self-interest or any interests…other than those of her audience. (Gordon, Kittross, Merrill, ; Babcock, & Dorsher, 1999)
​
And again, the Patterson & Wilkins citation of Hodges where he says “without some degree of privacy, civilized life would be impossible” (Patterson, 2011).
So, upon those ethical considerations, the following case study is presented.
Case Study: Welcome Home, Inc.
Local journalists had an entire year to make proper interview arrangements with the local Welcome Home Inc., of Columbia, MO, a charity specifically designed to assist military veterans with living quarters in situations of financial struggle due to various financial reasons that are none of anyone's business except the arrangement arrived at by the charity and the individual veteran. However, on Veteran's Day, 2016, a multitude of local journalists, most of whom had made no prior arrangement efforts at all, ascended upon the facility with the full gusto and power equivalent to what they apparently believed was within their First Amendment protections and perhaps beyond. As far as most facility staff can tell from the may lay that occurred that day, only one such media organization had made any kind of prior arrangements. The rest, who knows how they got a hold of the tip, but, they showed up anyway. Some journalist provided respect enough to contact facility staff while others ascended upon the outdoor smoking area and approached veterans. It is hard to tell what video footage was obtained outdoors, as the approach appeared to violate the private place legal conception despite posted "No Trespassing" signs that were clearly visible in the facility area. It is important to note, that the staff did react quickly with all the typical confidentiality procedures designated by the facility policy, and that the video obtained did not shed any veteran in a false light, was not within the context of libel, and as far as one can tell none of the footage was outside the realm of the consent of the veteran residents (S. Verona, personal communication, November 11, 2016).
Court Cases and, ...
Within this handbook, the right to privacy has been established for veterans living in facilities that cater to their individual needs. The case goes to the legal concept of intrusion more than any other of the four concepts of tort of privacy. However, video footage of a person smoking outside of a “homeless shelter” may be considered embarrassing in some manner, due to negative connotations associated with the term of “homeless.” As a user of this handbook, as an employee or staff of a facility catering to veterans, individuals may have to stay temporarily in certain facilities for just a brief time which does not fall into the full meaning of the term “homeless,” and without the basic defense of privacy violations – consent or newsworthiness – the exact status of a person’s situation should never be publicized. The definition of homeless is included in the box below as an exercise in exploring possible negativity that can be discerned fro the association.
​
​
The Right to Privacy, in the Harvard Law Review (Warren & Brandeis, 1890)
The court case in Table 1 of this handbook demonstrate, within a historical context, the growing concern for the right to privacy as advancing technologies had allowed for a person's image to be transmitted publicly in advancing technological mediums.
Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. (1905)
While the Warren and Brandeis Harvard Law Review article is a significant step toward greater understanding and establishment of the natural right to privacy, this case has to be the oldest case that clearly goes to the concepts of false light. While Pollard v. Photographic does bring into light the burgeoning technological advantage of photography as related to privacy rights, Pavesich has generally been the accepted basis for the right to privacy as related to the media and photographic use of a person's image.
Manola v. Stevens. (1890)
While this case precedes Pavesich, in time; it continues to demonstrate a documented concern for the uses of the technologies of photography as it allows the capture of a person's image and can clearly be done so without the consent of the individual being photographed.
Mark Oberholtzer and Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc. v. Charlie Thomas Ford, LTD (2015)
This case, while still an open case that has yet to be finalized, it is a demonstration of how digital photography and Web 2.0 can have a tremendous effect upon one's livelihood and public perception, and the implications there go to the concept of consent.
Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc
This cases illustrates how an individual's long established reputation can, similar to Oberholtzer, can be tarnished without proper consent.
Joe Nameth v Sports Illustrated
This case provides a clear demonstration of how the individual right to privacy can be perceived differently concerning the concept of newsworthiness.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (1971)
This case demonstrates how technology can invade upon right to privacy -- also having connections to consent and newsworthiness. The case also proves that a journalist's First Amendment protections are not all powerful mechanisms against the individual right to privacy.
Mistrel v. CBS
This case demonstrates a clear case of where journalists may feel obligated to trespass, given their ethical mandate to "courageously" seek the truth. However, it also demonstrates a clear connection to intrusive behaviors that are not protected by a journalist's First Amendment protections.
1st Amendment and, ...
Within this handbook, the right to privacy has been established for veterans living in facilities that cater to their individual needs though the varying court cases presented in Part I. It should be however noted that there are various cases where the term "homeless" is used in conjunction with some debatable concept of legal search and seizure right afforded under the Fourth Amendment. This handbook is only concerned with the torts of natural or common law, and the First Amendment. This handbook is not concerned with criminal Constitutional law related to some form of criminal investigation. It is important to note that despite the fact that Dietmann was included, as that was an abhorrent, weird, meddling, coagulated mixture of First and Fourth Amendments, and that case was, in retrospect, an SPJ code of ethics breech of the morals of journalism in any regard.
​
The overwhelming thesis of this handbook is and has been from the beginning the general understanding that the First Amendment protections given to journalist do no in all cases usurp the individual's right to privacy.
Professional Codes of Ethics and, ...
In addition to the law of the land, this treatise considers the basic ethical obligation of the journalist to honor the general human circumstance of an expectation of privacy as related to the ideas of the noted philosopher, Louis W. Hodges, who has stated;
​
"A conflict of interest…exists when a journalist’s professional (and professed) duty to serve audience interest is weakened … by a journalist’s self-interest or any interests…other than those of her audience" (Gordon, Kittross, Merrill, ; Babcock, & Dorsher (1999). Table 3 outlines how a journalist should be "fair," "honest," and "take responsibility." In this case, while newsworthiness was the case, there has to be an element of fairness involved. These journalist could have been more proactive in arranging times with the facility, after all, they should have had their angle on Veteran's Day for quite some time. Rather than simply showing up and putting a greater burden than necessary on the facility and the patrons, these journalists could have easily called ahead and arranged the intrusion in a much more ethical manner.
​
Situation specific guidelines, relating to the privacy rights of veterans and facilities catering to veterans, during media visits were provided in Part II of this handbook.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
These four guidelines are the best place to start in any sort of dealings with the media. In situations where media often show up unannounced, reactions have a wide variety of possibilities. For starters, it is most important to not try to response bully journalists. As we have demonstrated, the journalist profession is highly dependent upon a good sound set of ethics and morals. However, mutual respect is the best way route to take in these types of situations. Remember, they have a job to do as well as you do. The important thing is to try to find a nice even balance between the conflicts between First Amendment protections and rights of privacy. In most cases, professionalism and mutual respect will yield good results in cases like this.
​
Best Ethical Practices, relating to the privacy rights of veterans and facilities catering to veterans, during media visits were also provided in Part II of this handbook.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
It is important you present yourself professionally and establish clear guidelines during media visits. You should be sure to share your concerns about veteran privacy with the journalists; they are very likely to respect your concerns as long as you demonstrate professionalism and a genuine desire to help them to get the best possible story. Media packets are always a good idea, especially if a situation ever arises where media do show up unannounced. In those situations, you may feel anxious about being caught unaware, however, being proactive ahead of time will help to deal with these more reactive case scenarios. Above all, remain calm, courteous and fair in all dealings with the media. However, it is still important to ensure that privacy concerns are being honored as well.
​
Best Legal Practices and, ...
Best Legal Practices, relating to the privacy rights of veterans and facilities catering to veterans, during media visits were provided in Part II of this handbook.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Preparation is the best method to get ready for media visits. This handbook is a great place to start t prepare for media events and
gathering the necessary understandings of the legal basis that go along with these types of media interactions. As mentioned several times in this handbook, in these cases, these media events are a balancing act between the First Amendment and the right to privacy. Knowledge and understanding of the historical and case law associated with these two legal constructions is the best place to start, and with this knowledge, you will be very prepared to handle media events even in cases where a lot of the planning goes of the window so to speak.
​
​
