Situation Definition:
The Foster-Foreman Conference of Distinguished Writers hosted a series of lectures on campus last week, bringing two talented and accomplished journalists to Penn State to share their experiences.
I decided to attend the Julie Brown lecture in Schwab Auditorium. Brown is an investigative journalist for the Miami Herald, who is best known for groundbreaking role in exposing the flaws of the Florida Prison System and reopening the sex-trafficking case involving a former member of President Trump’s cabinet, Jeffrey Epstein.
As I listened to Brown speak, I was impressed both by the work she’s done and the way she conducted herself throughout the entirety of the Epstein case. Not only did she carry out a thorough and necessary investigation, she maintained high ethical standards by seeking to tell the truth and only the truth, while also making several important decisions in a situation in which privacy was an important factor.
Brown followed the ethical guidelines of “minimizing harm” by withholding the names of the victims and respecting their privacy while holding Epstein accountable for his actions. She also reported truthfully and in-depth on a public figure’s sexual affairs because the public’s right to know eclipsed everything else.
Analysis:
Brown was forced to make several important decisions regarding privacy in the Epstein case. First and foremost, she had to find a way to share the victims’ stories without causing any harm. As such, she followed a common practice in withholding the names of the victims of Epstein’s sex crimes, a point that is emphasized in Gene Foreman’s book, The Ethical Journalist. Foreman references several quotes made by Kelly McBride, a member of the Poynter Institute, pertaining to handling situations involving sex crimes. “Because rape victims are treated with insensitivity by society, they deserve a level of privacy not afforded other crime victims” (2016, Foreman, p. 248). McBride also references the fact that “society often blames victims” and because of the negative stigma surrounding these issues, victims are less likely to report the crime if they know their names will appear in a medium (such as a newspaper of website) that is accessible to the public.
This stark reality must be heavily taken into consideration when journalists work to describe the details of a case, which is exactly what Julie Brown did. She was careful not to identify most victims by their names, appearance, race, or ethnicity, yet she still described their experiences and provided information pertinent to the case. By doing so, Brown ensured the safety and integrity of victims was upheld throughout the entire process. According to the New York Times, Epstein had a “vast network of underage victims involving girls as young as 14,” so the necessity of privacy was only heightened in this scenario (2019, Hsu, para. 5).
The issue about whether or not to name victims of sex crimes has been debated for decades by professionals in the field. Michelle Johnson from the Seattle University Law Review mentions that “some commentators say journalists should publish sex-crime victims’ names because doing so promotes the truth and helps reduce the stigma of the crime” (1996, p. 402). But at what cost? Yes, it is beneficial to reduce the stigma surrounding these crimes, but if it causes severe trauma and harm to the victims is it worth it? Do we really need names to solidify someone’s account of a crime?
This is obviously a different take than that offered in The Ethical Journalist, which places privacy at the forefront of the investigation. Johnson even references a Supreme Court Case, Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn, in which the court upheld “the media could not be punished for printing the names of sex-crime victims when reporters obtained those names from public court documents” (1996, p. 402). This is where we define a distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. Something may be legal, but it doesn’t mean we should do it. Ethical considerations must always be taken into account, in addition to legal considerations.
The next ethical issue that was apparent in Brown’s lecture involved honesty and telling the truth at all costs because the American people have every right to know about what happened. Caroline Fisher believes an informed public will “ensure a robust and accountable representative democratic system” (2017, para. 9). There is definitely a correlation between democratic principles and the public’s right to know. If we kept the public in the dark about crimes (especially those related to public officials) we limit safety, independence, and freedom.
In this case, Brown felt that digging into the personal life of a public figure was necessary due to the extreme circumstances. Epstein’s privacy didn’t matter, because the American people deserved to know what crimes a member of the government had committed, as it is directly related to his moral character and ability to do his job.
Conclusion:
Brown’s lecture was extremely informative and eye-opening. I feel as though I learned so much about investigative journalism and how to properly pursue the truth and minimize harm in tough situations such as those involving sex-crimes. Brown upheld standards of ethics while doing her job and was able to re-open a case and obtain justice, when the previous efforts of law enforcement had failed. Her respect for victims and pursuit of truth were vital during this investigation.
Sources
Fisher, C. (2017). Re-assessing the “Public’s Right to Know.” Journalism Studies, 18(3), 358–375. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065196
Foreman, G. (2016). The ethical Journalist: making responsible decisions in the digital age. Hoboken: Wiley.
Hsu, T. (2019, July 9). The Jeffrey Epstein Case Was Cold, Until a Miami Herald Reporter Got Accusers to Talk. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/business/media/miami-herald-epstein.html.
Johnson, M. (1997). Protecting child sex-crime victims: How public opinion and political expediency threaten civil liberties. Seattle University Law Review, 20(2), 401-450.