It seems to me through our exploration of questions in the newspaper publishing world, there are always three answers (and sometimes more) to every ethical dilemma: yes, publish it - no, do not publish it - and, hmm it depends.
This week, in the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, Gawker has published the phone number of Vikram Pandit, the C.E.O. of Citigroup. Last week at a Fortune conference, Pandit announced he would "be happy to talk to" Wall Street protestors "any time they want," so Gawker decided to see if he could put his money where his mouth was and published his cell phone and office number for all to see.
Is this ethically sound? Normally, I think we all might say no unless our interviewee asked us to or confirmed we could, or, if it was relevant to the story. But this is something quite different, and we're seeing quite a bit on unconventionality with the 'Occupy' protests...
Well you tripped me up with this one. Usually I'd say that was a clear ethical violation. But when the subject, apparently a very rich fellow, makes a self-serving statement that the Gawker decided to take literally .... Kant might remind me later about the dangers of the Categorical Imperative, but at first glance I'm on their side, particularly since as far as the Wall St. tycoon is concerned it's just a pinprick. It is consistent with what Gawker does, a kind of gray area between traditional journalism and news comedy.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, decades ago a presidential aspirant named Gary Hart challenged reporters who questioned him about possible infidelities by saying (oh now we love the Google):
"Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored."
So when someone supplied a picture of him on board a boat named Monkey Business with a blonde on his lap.... It was easier back in that distant time for the press to accept his challenge and publish.