Bloggers, Ethics, and Photos of Children
I started commenting in a blog discussion at Progressive Alaska on whether it was appropriate to post a picture of one of the red shirted kids who protested at the Assembly meeting over the ordinance to add gays and lesbians and transgendered folks to the Anchorage anti-discrimination ordinance. My response was getting long so I decided it would be easier to put it together here. Below is the first comment that started this discussion of posting pictures of kids.
Anon, you bring up a legitimate question. Blogging is a new technology and we're exploring how to do what we do, so your question, with this example, is a legitimate one. But it appears to be a rhetorical question. Instead of exploring it, you immediately shut the door on discussion and start making moral judgments. On the other hand your tone hints that perhaps you've had some experience related to this issue which makes you particularly sensitive. If that's the case, then it would helpful if you mentioned it. It might even make others better understand your point.
I've asked people for permission when there was only one or two people in a picture, or if I thought being seen in the situation could potentially cause someone harm. But it's clear that you couldn't document a large crowd if you had to get permission of all the people in the picture. (Yes I know that isn't the kind of picture you are complaining about.)
In any case, let's explore the legitimacy of Anon's complaint.
1. Is it ok to take people's pictures and publish them without their permission?
How should we even try to answer that one? One of the comments attributed to an "Anon" (I realize that these may not be same people) suggested:
I looked further and found these guidelines for media dealing with children at the International Federation of Journalists website:
#4 - While the Anonymous poster doesn't like the idea of Phil posting the picture without permission, he (or she) doesn't identify any particular harm that might come to the child because of the posting of his picture.
I wonder if this Anonymous commenter has protested the pictures of Iranians demonstrating over the election. While those are crowd pictures with many people and getting permission would be difficult, the consequences of being identified from a blowup of any of those pictures, are probably far more ominous than those that might result from posting the picture of this kid.
#5 - One could argue that posting the pictures of the demonstrators in Iran was important news to document the unrest in Iran. But one could also say that posting pictures of kids at the Anchorage demonstration documents the reports that many of the demonstrators were just kids. That they are just kids of an age where they are highly unlikely to have made their own, personal, informed judgment on the morality of homosexuality and of denying homosexuals protections against discrimination.
#9 - Phil used fair, open, and straightforward methods for obtaining the picture. The kid is looking right into the camera.
The only slightly questionable part is "where possible obtain them with the knowledge and consent of the children, responsible adult, guardian, or carer."
Clearly the child knew his picture was being taken and I'm assuming that he didn't protest. We don't know whether his parents were there since many kids were allegedly brought to the meeting in church buses. And I assume the child didn't know that the picture would be on Phil's blog - I doubt Phil was wearing press credentials.
So, assuming that all I've said is accurate, then Phil could have gone further and asked for permission to post the picture - either from the kid himself or a 'responsible adult.'
Given that this is a close-up of one specific child, the ethically cleanest thing to do would have been to get permission to post the picture. Minimally, bloggers can just ask, "Do you mind if I post this on my blog?" I do that all the time for adults as well as kids. One can even document the permission with a video, found on most digital cameras today, or get written permission. A pain in the neck? Maybe. But if bloggers are going to hold politicians to high ethical standards and harass them for skipping steps, then they ought to make sure they don't skip steps in their own guidelines. As one of the anonymous posters wrote -
On the other hand, bloggers are not journalists, but it seems to me in gathering the news, we should also abide by the do no harm ethic. Mere technicality? Well, Sarah Palin would argue the same thing about her Arctic Cat jacket. And it's not that hard to stay clean here. If you get home without permission, there are easy ways to blur or block enough of a face to hide the identity of the subject. It may not have the same impact, but you'll try harder next time.
Anonymous said...
Do you ask for permission from your subjects before you publish their image ?
How about if the subject is a minor ?
Have you ever considered that this minor child, or perhaps his parents may not want his image published on your website ?
For all of the crass behavior our Governor has shown over the past few months, there are times when the gang of liberal bloggers have matched that crass behavior.
This is one of them.
Anon, you bring up a legitimate question. Blogging is a new technology and we're exploring how to do what we do, so your question, with this example, is a legitimate one. But it appears to be a rhetorical question. Instead of exploring it, you immediately shut the door on discussion and start making moral judgments. On the other hand your tone hints that perhaps you've had some experience related to this issue which makes you particularly sensitive. If that's the case, then it would helpful if you mentioned it. It might even make others better understand your point.
I've asked people for permission when there was only one or two people in a picture, or if I thought being seen in the situation could potentially cause someone harm. But it's clear that you couldn't document a large crowd if you had to get permission of all the people in the picture. (Yes I know that isn't the kind of picture you are complaining about.)
In any case, let's explore the legitimacy of Anon's complaint.
1. Is it ok to take people's pictures and publish them without their permission?
How should we even try to answer that one? One of the comments attributed to an "Anon" (I realize that these may not be same people) suggested:
Do yourself a big favor and read the Blogger's Code of Ethics and then ask yourself if publishing this child's picture is kosher.I did look up blogger code of ethics and what I found was a modified version of the Society for Journalists' Code of Ethics. So let's look at the original. I checked the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. Mind you, bloggers don't claim to be 'professional journalists' for the most part so they aren't covered by these rules, but it's a reasonable place to start. The section that seems most appropriate is the section called Minimize Harm:
Minimize HarmThere is nothing I see in this Journalists' Code of Ethics that Phil has violated. But it doesn't discuss getting permission for publishing pictures, of adults or children.
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. [This seems to be a problem on many blogs, but I don't see how the picture is particularly problematic here. And in this section of the post, Phil was pretty neutral.]
Journalists should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. [There's a slightly out of focus picture of a kid. The text next to it says nothing about the kid and speaks in pretty neutral terms about coverage of the protests. There's nothing negative here unless you automatically assume posting kids' pictures is taboo.]
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. [The subject of the photo is not someone affected by tragedy or grief in the traditional sense of that word. His family may feel passage of the ordinance would be a tragedy, but others might think that the reason for the ordinance is to prevent tragedies and grief coming to gays and lesbians.)
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. [Again, I don't see this being violated by the posting of the picture or the text associated with it.]
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy. [This kid was exercising his Constitutional rights to free speech by publicly protesting a political action with which he disagreed. He was out in public. Phil was exercising his Constitutional rights to free speech by publishing the picture. He did not use a telephoto lens to take a picture of the kid in his house. The kid is not in a compromising position. And there is far less likelihood that anyone will do harm to this kid for his protest than there is for those demonstrating in favor of the ordinance. That's why, some would argue, we need the ordinance.][Added later: Furthermore, the kids would fit the category of "others who seek power, influence or attention" who are less entitled according to this. And if you say the kids aren't, then the people who brought them are responsible for this.]
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. [Again, unless you think that any picture of a kid without the parents' permission is pandering, I'd have to say there is nothing remarkable or embarrassing about the picture or the text next to it.]
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes. [The kid is neither a suspect or victim of a sex crime to my knowledge.]
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges. [Again, not applicable.]
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed. [Again, not applicable.]
I looked further and found these guidelines for media dealing with children at the International Federation of Journalists website:
Numbers 4, 5, and 9 seem to be the only ones that are directly relevant. And I would once again remind readers that some bloggers consider themselves journalists and others do not. And those that do may have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with the rules for mainstream media journalists.
Children's Rights and Media: Guidelines and Principles for Reporting on Issues Involving Children
These guidelines were adopted by journalists' organisations from 70 countries at the world's first international consultative conference on journalism and child rights held in Recife, Brazil, on May 2nd 1998.
All journalists and media professionals have a duty to maintain the highest ethical and professional standards and should promote within the industry the widest possible dissemination of information about the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and its implications for the exercise of independent journalism.
Media organisations should regard violation of the rights of children and issues related to children's safety, privacy, security, their education, health and social welfare and all forms of exploitation as important questions for investigations and public debate. Children have an absolute right to privacy, the only exceptions being those explicitly set out in these guidelines.
Journalistic activity which touches on the lives and welfare of children should always be carried out with appreciation of the vulnerable situation of children. Journalists and media organisations shall strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct in reporting children's affairs and, in particular, they shall
1. strive for standards of excellence in terms of accuracy and sensitivity when reporting on issues involving children;
2. avoid programming and publication of images which intrude upon the media space of children with information which is damaging to them;
3. avoid the use of stereotypes and sensational presentation to promote journalistic material involving children;
4. consider carefully the consequences of publication of any material concerning children and shall minimise harm to children;
5. guard against visually or otherwise identifying children unless it is demonstrably in the public interest;
6. give children, where possible, the right of access to media to express their own opinions without inducement of any kind;
7. ensure independent verification of information provided by children and take special care to ensure that verification takes place without putting child informants at risk;
8. avoid the use of sexualised images of children;
9. use fair, open and straight forward methods for obtaining pictures and, where possible, obtain them with the knowledge and consent of children or a responsible adult, guardian or carer;
10. verify the credentials of any organisation purporting to speak for or to represent the interests of children;
11. not make payment to children for material involving the welfare of children or to parents or guardians of children unless it is demonstrably in the interest of the child. [emphasis added.]
#4 - While the Anonymous poster doesn't like the idea of Phil posting the picture without permission, he (or she) doesn't identify any particular harm that might come to the child because of the posting of his picture.
I wonder if this Anonymous commenter has protested the pictures of Iranians demonstrating over the election. While those are crowd pictures with many people and getting permission would be difficult, the consequences of being identified from a blowup of any of those pictures, are probably far more ominous than those that might result from posting the picture of this kid.
#5 - One could argue that posting the pictures of the demonstrators in Iran was important news to document the unrest in Iran. But one could also say that posting pictures of kids at the Anchorage demonstration documents the reports that many of the demonstrators were just kids. That they are just kids of an age where they are highly unlikely to have made their own, personal, informed judgment on the morality of homosexuality and of denying homosexuals protections against discrimination.
#9 - Phil used fair, open, and straightforward methods for obtaining the picture. The kid is looking right into the camera.
The only slightly questionable part is "where possible obtain them with the knowledge and consent of the children, responsible adult, guardian, or carer."
Clearly the child knew his picture was being taken and I'm assuming that he didn't protest. We don't know whether his parents were there since many kids were allegedly brought to the meeting in church buses. And I assume the child didn't know that the picture would be on Phil's blog - I doubt Phil was wearing press credentials.
So, assuming that all I've said is accurate, then Phil could have gone further and asked for permission to post the picture - either from the kid himself or a 'responsible adult.'
Given that this is a close-up of one specific child, the ethically cleanest thing to do would have been to get permission to post the picture. Minimally, bloggers can just ask, "Do you mind if I post this on my blog?" I do that all the time for adults as well as kids. One can even document the permission with a video, found on most digital cameras today, or get written permission. A pain in the neck? Maybe. But if bloggers are going to hold politicians to high ethical standards and harass them for skipping steps, then they ought to make sure they don't skip steps in their own guidelines. As one of the anonymous posters wrote -
You sir, have no integrity and you lose any moral high ground that you have.I think the poster compromises him(her)self by denying Phil any integrity altogether, but posting a child's picture - even one as innocuous as this one - does make it harder to take the high ground when calling others to task for ethical violations.
On the other hand, bloggers are not journalists, but it seems to me in gathering the news, we should also abide by the do no harm ethic. Mere technicality? Well, Sarah Palin would argue the same thing about her Arctic Cat jacket. And it's not that hard to stay clean here. If you get home without permission, there are easy ways to blur or block enough of a face to hide the identity of the subject. It may not have the same impact, but you'll try harder next time.