In an era when digital surveillance, trolling, doxxing, and abusive social-media postings have severely eroded privacy, what measure of discretion do journalists nonetheless owe their subjects?
We’re hearing more from journalists about this issue lately when it comes to coverage of politicians and other public figures. Everyone with a phone is now a potential paparazzi; CCTV cameras are watching pretty much everywhere. Extreme views that can lead to hatred and violence pervade the internet and social media. Threats and shaming appear to be more pervasive than ever.
In this context, should news outlets identify the child of a politician, for instance, as the star of the high school musical or as the ace pitcher on a middle-school softball team? Should reporters name the restaurant where a controversial podcaster regularly eats dinner? Should reporters dredge up internet details about a long-ago affair by the spouse of a candidate for major office?
Under longtime journalism conventions, public figures like politicians and celebrities should expect deeper scrutiny of their lives than people who don’t seek publicity. That’s the traditional tradeoff for fame. If a politician, a CEO, or a celebrity suffers a health crisis, is accused of misconduct, or experiences any other kind of event that might generate interest or potentially affect their job performance, it’s generally considered fair to report on it.
When public figures use their families to burnish their images, it’s sometimes justifiable to publish stories that intrude on the privacy of their spouses or children. Examples might be actors who get their children cast in movies or politicians who use their kids in political ads.
But it’s also true that social media allows information to spread more quickly than ever. That information, moreover, will thereafter be available to anyone with internet access. Between political violence, rampant conspiracy theories, and threats to celebrities’ families, public figures have legitimate fears about the safety of their family members and other people who, whether intentionally or accidentally, come into their orbit.
So what ethical principles should journalists keep in mind as they decide whether to pursue and publish stories about those in the orbit of public figures?
There are few hard and fast rules for these situations. In most cases, reporters should consult with their editors about the potential consequences of a story that impinges on the privacy of a well-known figure.
The threshold question is whether the inclusion of private facts is newsworthy. Let’s say, for example, that a politician’s son has been arrested for endangering the safety of his child. That’s public information so it’s reportable. But journalists should ask themselves if the information is relevant to the politician’s reputation or otherwise serves the public interest.
Would you report the story if the alleged crime did not involve the son of a famous person? Is the son himself a public figure, perhaps because he has actively worked on his parent’s campaigns? Will your story cause harm to private people? Is that harm outweighed by the value of the information you are providing to the public?
You should also do a gut check if the story involves a public figure whose views you oppose. Would you run the piece if it dented the reputation of a celebrity or politician whose views align with yours?
And, of course, you should seek comment from the public figure before running a story that implicates a friend or family member. Listen to the arguments not to include the private fact and keep an open mind in these conversations.
Ethics guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are quite helpful in these discussions. Journalism, the SPJ code reminds us, is not “a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” An ethical journalist will show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage and will avoid stories that pander to lurid curiosity – even if competitors are winning clicks with salacious details. Just because you can publish something, the SPJ code advises, doesn’t mean you should.
Different news organizations may well come to different conclusions about newsworthiness. (Try not to allow competitive pressure to affect your analysis.) In the 2024 presidential campaign, for example, the British tabloid The Daily Mail reported that Doug Emhoff, the husband of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, had had an affair with a teacher at his children’s school in 2009, when he was still married to his first wife and had not yet met Harris. The Mail named the teacher, ran her photograph, and reported that she had had a child as a result of the affair.
When The New York Times and The Washington Post ran stories on Emhoff’s subsequent statement acknowledging his long-ago infidelity, neither reported the name of his alleged lover nor repeated the Mail’s assertion that she had a child with Emhoff. (The Times disclosed that it had unsuccessfully sought comment from the woman but did not use her name.)
Even innocuous stories can have damaging consequences. Consider the example of a public figure’s child starring in a high school show or on an athletic team. A local newspaper might well provide routine coverage of high school arts and athletics, including the names of star students. But if that student is the child of, say, a U.S. Supreme Court justice, the coverage could be misused by the justice’s critics. Even putting aside potential violence, it’s not hard to imagine protesters showing up on the high school campus – a possible consequence that journalists should keep in mind when deciding whether to put a spotlight on public figures’ families.
There will, of course, be instances when a story’s news value justifies compromises to the privacy of a public figure’s family members. When Republicans accused Hunter Biden of capitalizing as a businessman on Joe Biden’s vice-presidency, news organizations would have been remiss to skip the story. (The allegedly lurid photos on Hunter Biden’s laptop, on the other hand, are of dubious news value.)
Stories that intrude on a family member’s privacy may have unfortunate follow-on consequences. But if you’ve made a careful decision about why publication of the story served the public interest – and if you’ve given everyone involved a chance to change your mind about the story’s newsworthiness – you’ve done your job.