Journalistic Ethics; to publish or not to publish

Scenario: A reporter attends a public meeting of a municipal school board. During the meeting, the board votes to enter executive session and excludes the reporter and public from the meeting. The reporter exits, and a member of the school board close the door behind him, leaving an unidentified non-board member in the room. The reporter remains on the outside of the door and overhears clearly the conversation, which turns out to be a discussion about how the town should resolve a threatened lawsuit brought by parents who allege that a school principal has sexually abused numerous students on the school grounds during school hours over an extended period. The unidentified non-board member appears by reference to be a lawyer for the parents. Is the reporter acting ethically by listening at the door? Should he publish the information he has learned? What if the principal has been, prior to the meeting, suspended and is not in contact with children?



The reporter is an ethically grey area by listening at the door. If he wasn't invited into the room then the conversation wasn't for him to hear, at the very least it's hard to consider it on the record. However if the conversation can be heard clearly, then anyone could have heard what was said, and in a way it would considered said in public. I think it would also be unethical to pretend he didn't hear anything at all.


 If I were that reporter I would use the conversation I heard as something to point me in the right direction in order to get information in a more ethical way to publish. Perhaps I would wait and ask the lawyer for a comment after the meeting was through. Just simply being able to identify the lawyer in a closed door meeting would serve the public's need to know but also not cross over into unethical ground. Just flat out asking the school board to explain themselves might lead to a more legitimate story as well. I think often journalism is so quick to want to expose something in a shocking way that as a profession journalists rarely act on good faith. I think the proper thing to do would be to level with the board and let them know what I had heard and ask them if they would answer questions for a story rather than have me write about what was overheard.

If the school board was worried about getting bad publicity then the location and time of the meeting with the lawyer should have been more carefully calculated. And there is a public right to know when there is a possibility that students are still attending a school that employs a sexual predator.


It seemed like before the doors were closed the press had been invited, if they intended for them to only be invited for a portion of the meeting, it would've been in their best interest to communicate that ahead of time. I would likely base this decision on what I heard and if I felt the information was important enough to share with the public. I would attempt to find a more reliable source for the information first though.

It's important for the reporter to consider that if no one else heard the conversation behind closed doors and everyone there denies it then it might look like the reporter is lying or fabricating a story. There is also the attorney-client privilege to consider.

I would be very careful if I were the reporter. If I felt I had a duty to inform the public based on what I heard I would frame the story with phrases like "from what it seemed like" or "from what it sounded like".  That way the observance is being shared but not necessarily being stated as a fact.

I think this speaks to a larger question the USA has been asking lately since the Snowden incident…..is it ok to eavesdrop? Honestly I think it is ok to access information or conversations that are somewhat public. I do not think it is ok to wire tap or intrude upon someone's home to eavesdrop. It is a grey area, but I think the answer would lie in the fact if others have access to the information as well then it's really public, not private.

If a person uses Facebook or Verizon they are using that companies service, therefore that company has access to their information and conversations, therefore it is not really completely private. If Facebook can read your messages without you knowing it why shouldn't the gov't be able to monitor them, especially if the stated purpose is to find dangerous red flags? It is not a clear cut answer, I do believe there is sound logic on each side of the argument.

Overall I think it would depend on the situation if eavesdropping is ok or not. I think the ends could possibly justify the means.