Journalists should think twice, thrice!

SIR—Journalists may generally have great latitude in writing and reporting because press freedom is a constitutional right. However, sometimes the courts have to step in when the societal damage far outweighs the argument for press freedom. The Red Pepper’s argument that it has a societal obligation to expose immorality was quite interesting; but it runs into trouble where the subjects of press coverage are, according to the law, minors. Consider the damage caused to the kids who were caught on camera having sex but whose facial identity the editors did not bother to conceal. The kids may be “spoiled” as The Red Pepper might impute. However, because according to the laws of libel and defamation, even a notorious person has a good name, the law protects them against unfair exposure to public ridicule! They were not so notorious as to justify their vilification by the journalists without taking the usual precaution of darkening their faces and the offensive areas of sexual copulation. The newspaper should have greater sensitivity in the coverage of such stories. The stories about children need to be treated with kid gloves! Publishing the photos in the manner they were was downright unfair. Journalists have to think hard about situations in which their training as journalists comes into conflict with their conscience and that of society. As sympathetic humans, they could themselves be parents now or in the future. The kids needed counselling, not exposure. They misbehaved alright; but children generally deserve special treatment from the press. The journalists should have asked themselves such questions as: What are the ethical concerns of publishing the photographs? Wouldn’t a story without illustration have been sufficient? Who would be affected? What if the roles were reversed, how would they feel if the kids were to be their own children? Samuel Baligidde Kampala