Brazilian police had tried unsuccessfully for an hour to get a man to release holding his mother and sister hostage. Eventually he said that he would talk to a journalist that was live on the air during his talk show. After 20 minutes, the host was able to pursuade the man to release the 2. Afterwards, the host said that he regretted his actions and that they were not the role of a journalist.
IMO, he should regret nothing. He is a human first and his first responsibilty is to provide assistance to those in need. He is a journalist second. I see no difference in this case versus providing CPR or first-aid to someone as opposed to filming the victim.
His actions were correct. Journalists are people too, and there’s nothing wrong with stepping in to help another. There would be something wrong with failing to help others in order to mainatin some facade of objectitivity. Journalism isn’t some great noble profession anyway.
Evidently his journalistic integrity is off the charts to regret ending a situation like that so swiftly. I don’t think he regrets what he did for those people, simply the fact that he broke a journalistic rule which is something like you cover the news don’t make the news.
Does he regret getting involved in the situation because that was not an appropriate thing for a journalist to do, or does he regret giving into the demands of a hostage taker because that might encourage other nuts to do the same thing? From the CNN clip it sounds like he is talking about the first one - and I don’t think he did anything wrong - but it’s not totally clear to me.
He should have felt obligated to do it even if he didn’t want to because of his job. If he said no then he may very well have sealed those hostages fates knowing the guy obviously didn’t want to talk to the cops and the only guy he asked to talk to blew him off.
I think both sides are right. If journalists get to active in war zones, for example, that could make other civilians seem like legit targets, endangering everyone and making all kinds of thing hard. Neutrality isn’t just about ideals, it can be very practical.
This isn’t much like that, though. It’s generally a good idea not to insert yourself into a story, but he didn’t do that. The hostage taker asked for him and I don’t see how it compromises his ability to be an objective journalist when covering any story other than this one. And when it comes to war zones journalists are usually seen as a somewhat separate category from other civilians.
I hate the whole “I’m a journalist, I’m special” mentality. I think it stems from a misreading of Freedom Of The Press. The FF did not use “The Press” to refer to a class of people who report news, it just meant that everyone was free to create and distribute printed material just as they were free to speak their point of view.
It stems from a recognition of the important role the press can play in a free society and a recognition of what tends to happen when the press doesn’t have freedom to operate, both of which Jefferson & Co. understood. It has nothing to do with misreading of an extremely straightforward clause in the First Amendment.
I’ve scanned a few news stories about Datena, and I still can’t tell if he thinks the negotiation was inappropriate for a journalist, if he just regrets being sucked into this situation, regrets negotiating with the hostage taker on air, or something else. Ethically he didn’t do anything wrong. Journalistic impartiality is important but it doesn’t trump basic human decency in a situation like this.
So you think the meaning of “the press” as you used it in your sentence is the same as it is in the Constitution?
There is noting about the first amendment that makes it apply more to working journalists than it does to any other citizen. You see in the UK what happens when journalists think they are immune from either criminal law or moral obligation and start to do things like hack cell phone accounts of crime victims.
Journalist are able to operate in dangerous situations precisely because they do not take an active role. When journalists start crossing those boundaries and taking action, it can dilute that and make journalists a target. This can also bleed into blurring the line for other civilians, such as aid workers or doctors
Journalistic neutrality is not just and idealist thing. It is a practical mechanism for making sure news can be gathered and journalists are safe in the field.
The Constitution doesn’t make a distinction, but I didn’t say it did. You proposed that there is an “I’m a journalist and I’m special” attitude that has something to do with a misunderstanding of the Constitution, and I am saying you are wrong. The Constitution reflects a view that the press is important for the reason I described, and the attitude you are complaining about also reflects that view.
You seem to be proposing that the authors of the Constitution would not have considered the idea of professional journalism. Let me ask this: do you think everybody in colonial America owned a printing press? I don’t. One of the reasons the First Amendment says what it says is the trial of John Peter Zenger, a professional printer and journalist. The Founders would have supported the idea we now call citizen journalism but they wouldn’t have a problem with professional media.
Nobody believes otherwise. But then again the First Amendment does say “the freedom of speech, or of the press.” That doesn’t mean the press gets extra freedom, but it shows they wanted to emphasize that printed expression (which is much less common than speech) deserved protection on its own.
It can, yes. And while journalists may put themselves at risk by failing to be impartial, it’s also true that they are already at risk in a war zone because they’re in a war zone and because people involved in the conflict may not want their actions reported on. None of that applies to this situation. Datena’s actions don’t affect anyone else and they don’t affect his ability to cover any story but this one. He didn’t cross a boundary. The hostage taker asked to speak to Datena, and he agreed. That’s not a situation any sensible person would ever want to be in, but having found himself in that situation he did the right thing. Datena’s actions don’t put other journalists at risk.