PressEthic

A journalist’s job is to inform the public. Reporters are duty bound to pursue stories and ask tough questions, even when sources are reluctant to speak with them. Yet every now and then, there comes a moment when the reporter must ask him or herself: does the public really have a right to know?

Take the case of Austrian Natascha Kampusch. Kampusch was kidnapped on her way to school when she was only ten years old. For eight-and-a-half years her captor held her prisoner in his cellar. Her recent escape led to an international media blitz with reporters clamoring for answers to some very personal questions. A New York Times article says:

What was first a stranger-than-fiction crime story swiftly mutated into a national obsession and finally a media circus, as photographers and television crews clamored for pictures of the young woman.

Kampusch responded to the attention by writing a letter to the media and public. In her letter she states:

I would like, however, to make clear to you in advance that I do not want or plan to answer any questions about intimate or personal details.

She agreed to do several interviews, one with ORF, the Austrian state broadcaster. Kampusch received advance interview questions and determined which ones she would answer.

In general I find submitting a list of questions to a source before an interview to be an example of sloppy reporting. It gives the subject time to prepare for the interview and leaves the journalist vulnerable to manufactured answers. In addition, it limits necessary follow-up questions, and gives the subject a measure of control over the interview.

Yet in the case of Natascha Kampusch, I believe an exception is called for. After undergoing a traumatic eight-and-a-half years, Kampusch now has the daunting task of trying to lead a normal life. And the media isn’t making that easy.

Journalists are responsible for reporting news and supplying answers, but at what ethical cost? A barrage of questions about Kampusch’s sexual past in captivity may momentarily quench the public’s curiosity, but is the public actually entitled to the gory details?

Since no national or world events are influenced by the story, and the subject is neither a politician nor intentional celebrity, I believe Kampusch should be afforded some measure of privacy. Hasn’t she already been through enough?