Wasn’t the point of the protest to generate public awareness?
Re: your editorial “Back off, man, we’re journalists” (Times Standard, Nov. 21, Page A4).
Actually, your headline misses a major point concerning the law on photography/videography in public. According to many court rulings, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place — anyone has the legal right to videotape or photograph that protester who yelled at the Times-Standard reporter outside St. Joseph Hospital this past week.
Courts have ruled, for example, that, “It is not just news organizations … who have First Amendment rights to make and display videotapes of events
— all of us . . . have that right” (1989). And, “The rights of having access to public events and communicating news relating to them are enjoyed by all persons, not just the mass media” (1995).
Under the “public forum doctrine,” which balances publicinterest and First Amendment rights vs. individual privacy concerns, the courts have held that, “Traditional public forums include streets, sidewalks and parks,” and that private individuals may be photographed in such settings.
Of course, common politeness should prevent a photographer from intruding on what is clearly a private situation — a family picnicking in a public park, for example.
But in the case of the person protesting on a public street outside St. Joseph Hospital who yelled at your reporter, he may not like being photographed, but he made the choice to be part of that event in that public place. “Public,” get it?
Besides, wasn’t the whole point of the protest to generate public awareness and support on hospital work issues? And those who participated in the protest, or even just showed up to watch, were inserting themselves into a public event, inviting attention.
The attitude this protester expressed to your reporter is troubling. It represents what seems to be a growing confusion and disregard among the public about public/private rights and responsibilities. This confusion is perhaps no surprise in the social media age, when private lives are so routinely splashed across tweets and Facebook and YouTube. But social media invasion of privacy is very different from the press reporting events and issues of public concern in a public place.
This confusion even seems to extend into some of the best journalism schools in the country. Take Northwestern University, where the student Daily Northwestern recently tied itself in knots over coverage of a demonstration against a speech by former Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Student journalists covered the speech, as well as student protesters, some of whom got roughed up by university police. As the Chicago Tribune observed, “The work of journalists is to chronicle events in realtime — to write the first draft of history, as we news folks like to say. The reporters and editors of The Daily Northwestern did their job.”
But after some of the protesters complained about seeing themselves in photos and video reporting the story, the student newspaper apologized for its “invasive” coverage and took photos of protesters down from the website, leaving everyone — including themselves — confused about the legitimate role of the press, which is to report news.
“Here’s what news organizations owe their audiences,” Chicago Tribune editors wrote: “thorough, fair-minded coverage via energetic and creative reporting — not pandering to public sentiment.”
In pushing back against the St. Joe protester who didn’t want to be videotaped, the Times-Standard’s reporter was doing her job — reporting the news for the rest of us who couldn’t be there. If anything, the protester was interfering with the reporter’s rights.
Kudos and thanks to people who engage in issues of public interest — from hospital staffing to Indian rights to climate change. In a free society, we need to hear each other’s opinion if we are ever to understand one another. And we also need robust and truthful reporting on issues if we’re ever going to figure out how to move forward in troubling times.