Right to know or not to know
Posted on January 5, 2005
Filed Under Politics, News, Something to Think about |
Where does journalism’s right to inform cross the line of an individual’s right to privacy? Does such a line exsit?
In today’s Toronto Star, the list of missing Canadians from the December 26th tsunami was published. The Star’s editor-in-chief Giles Gherson was on CBC Radio1 this morning attempting to justify the paper’s actions that the Canadian public has a right to know the names. The Governement of Canada has refused to publish the names citing Privacy laws. Why should it be any different for The Star? In fact, has The Star broken said law? If so it should be prosecuted.
The family and friends of the 150 missing know they are missing, so the publication does no service to them. But what it does do is give other journalists the information needed to pester the families of the missing in search of a video clip or quote that can be used. To interrupt a private grieving process that may never have closure does no service to the community. Another disservice would be to those that share a name with one of the missing, and are mistakenly thought to be one of the unfortunate souls that perished at the hands of the wall of water.
Since I read all my news online I cannot cancel my subscription, but I call on those who currently get the Toronto Star to consider switching to a less profiteering newspaper that is more sensitive to the laws that protect individuals. I will stop visiting The Star website and have removed it from my Linkroll.
Comments
4 Responses to “Right to know or not to know”
Leave a Reply
I hadn’t heard of this happening until I read your blog. So I clicked on the link. I would have to be a registered subscriber to get the content (aka names) though.
Not to stand up for the Star but is what they did really “profiteering” or all that wrong? On the nightly news when someone is murdured or killed the news services politly wait for the name to be released after the next of kin are informed. You say all the families have been informed.
When someone is lost or abducted we publish their name, age, picture, anything on milk cartons and around public areas. We list the names of war vetrans, and those who are missing, why should this be any different?
If the article was done in good taste, then I see no problems with publishing those missing because of the disaster. But I cannot know the motivations of those who write the paper.
If someone I loved was in the Tsunami disaster I would want a picture and name published in as many places as possible in the hope of that person being found.
Who gave the Star the names. That is who really should be at fault if you want to blame anyone for disclosing the information.
Registration online is free. It is like the NYT on /., you have to give a pint of blood, a kidney, or your first born.
The next of kin has the right to request the name not be release, and in some cases they do.
Gherson’s primay explantion given was:
“We believe it is a matter of overwhelming public interest that the information should flow freely so relatives or friends in Canada can tell the authorities if they know someone on the missing list is, in fact, safe.” — Giles Gherson Editor-in-Chief
If someone is in fact safe, the authorities will find out eventually. I don’t see the urgent need to have this list of names.
Publishing names in Canada will not help them be found in Asia. And the proper authorities that will be able to make indentifications likely have these names already.
The Star had 3 reporters working on this task exclusively since shortly after the event.
We publish the names of anyone who makes over 100K, We publish obituraries, long as the families involved have no issues over their names being published, I don’t see this is as a big deal.
The Sunshine list (+$100,000) is only for public employees, it publication is in the best interest of the public because it is the public’s money they are being paid with. Obituaries are submitted by choice by the family.
The big deal is exactly your point that as “long as the families have no issues”… they were never asked by The Star if it was ok to publish the names.