PressEthic

Several Florida newspapers have requested access to a list of those who received post-hurricane government aid, an AP article reported Tuesday. This is problematic because disseminating such information may invade the privacy of those affected.

The Florida newspapers are interested in the information for statistical purposes, and could perhaps use it to critique FEMA's post-hurricane actions:

Among other things, the papers want to see if any FEMA aid doled out following four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004 was given to people who were not actually affected, Tobin said.

But FEMA is adamant that this information not be released, citing the privacy applicants are guaranteed. The article goes on:

Several of the appeals court judges questioned whether access to the addresses could lead the media to obtain the recipients’ names and, therefore, cause an invasion of privacy. They also asked whether the recipients would be stigmatized by someone else knowing they received government aid.

An article in the Southwest Florida News-Press made a strong case for the disclosure of the records:

The News-Press, Pensacola News Journal and Florida Today, all owned by Gannett Inc., contend access to the records is needed to examine the Federal Emergency Management Agency's performance in handing out billions of dollars in aid to hurricane victims. The News-Press and other media uncovered government waste and fraud in the wake of the 2004 storms.

The article goes on to say:

"This is a real test of whether everything in government is a privacy issue," said Charles Davis, executive director of the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

It seems like privacy becomes an issue with nearly every controversial case we discuss. Journalists have illegally (and unethically) hacked into corporate voicemail accounts, scoured garbage cans, used hidden cameras and other covert methods to catch people in some scandalous act. But with an issue that could uncover the alleged shortcomings of an organization like FEMA in the wake of disaster, I think there is a greater good to be served here. The News-Press article continues:

FEMA, which has spent more than $40 billion in taxpayer money since 2004 to aid storm victims, came under fire for botched relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina.

An analysis by The News-Press after the 2004 hurricanes showed the government approved money for more than 17,000 new TV sets, among other items such as air conditioners, freezers, sewing machines, microwaves, toys and computers.

Such findings underscore the need for newspapers to hold the government accountable, said Kate Marymont, executive editor of The News-Press.

"How can we know whether billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately without specific information on where the money went?" Marymont said. "This isn't a question of journalists' access to information but residents' access. People want to know if they were treated the same from house to house, neighborhood to neighborhood, storm to storm."

Access to public records is critical for government watchdogs, said Adria Harper, director of the First Amendment Foundation.

Ahh, government watchdogs. There it is. Whistleblowers and checker-uppers whose aim is to serve the public, right? It seems the line we walk as journalists is infinite, and we are constantly called upon to make tough decisions. The question, in this case, and perhaps in every case, is: what's at stake? Would this so-called invasion of privacy have consequences for those who have received funding?

But rights are rights, and there may prove to be a slew of angry aid recipients whose information is made public after they were promised privacy.

So the journalists are the bad guys for wanting to invade the privacy of victims of natural disaster. Or the journalists are the bad guys for not serving the public interest by critically analyzing government organizations. Whether the public good or the protection of privacy prevail may be irrelevant. Either way, the journalists can't win.