PressEthic

I watched a report from Fox 5’s Andrea Day, investigating guards which give New Yorkers a false sense of security despite possible previous criminal convictions. Just like my remarks on private security contractors in Iraq, it brought to our attention an important fact that some security officials without proper training or registration are able to operate under US jurisdiction.

What I found interesting were the methods employed by Day and her investigative team. Footage from a hidden camera was an important part of the story’s evidence, and this raises questions about the use of such methods. It seems to be a question of public interest vs. invasion of privacy.

The program interviewed a number of people, often anonymously and sometimes without their knowledge, who informed the viewer that some of the security guards had been employed, despite knowledge of their previous involvement with narcotics, other drug violations and violent crimes. The viewer was also told that companies would often not carry out a background check for those working at sites such as Newark Liberty airport, and this has apparently not changed despite the events of 9/11. Though a hidden camera was used, only occasionally were faces masked.

One security company boss admitted that people can get a job with a criminal conviction, that “felony cases slip through the cracks,” even despite NY’s Secretary of State saying that their was a zero tolerance on this “practice of dragging people off the street and claiming they were security guards.” It’s perfectly legal for people to be guarding a building before the results of their background checks had come in, Day informs the viewer. This all “raises questions about people we should trust” – and this is surely the point of hidden camera investigative reporting. So when those we believe are guarding us have misrepresented themselves, and may be convicted felons, does the public interest necessitate the use of hidden camera and misrepresentative journalism if this is the only way to uncover these potentially terrifying facts? Or does the threat of litigation for, e.g. defamation of character prevent such journalist behaviour from being as common as it in the UK?