In my opinion, one of the biggest privacy issues in journalism today is the use of mugshots in crime reporting. Mugshots are often taken on the worst day of someone's life in the worst position they've ever been in. These mugshots don't just appear in the paper for one day, they live on the internet forever and are permanently linked to a quick Google search of someone's name, no matter how long it has been since the crime story was published. Now that we are in the age of online reporting, I believe that news organizations need to reevaluate their use of mugshots in crime reporting, especially for nonviolent crimes.
In our current system with online news as a main source of information, continuing to publish mugshots with crime stories about a nonviolent offense goes against the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. The code states that journalists must minimize harm in reporting and treat everyone as a human being deserving of respect. In an online world where one mention of your name on the internet is forever tied to your presence, following this code includes not using mugshots for stories about nonviolent offenses. Subjecting a person to be defined by a mistake they made is not ethical and violates their right to privacy in a digital age. Every time I post a photo to one of my social media accounts or write an article that gets published under my name, I forgo my right to digital privacy and agree to have that photo or article associated with my name on the internet forever. In the past, getting arrested may constitute an agreement to give up your right to privacy since arrest records are public records, but these records are more available now than ever before. Including a mugshot in a story about a nonviolent crime that is already associated with a public record that can be viewed online is overkill and harms the individual by violating their digital privacy.
Mugshots have historically been used in reporting more for an entertainment factor rather than for providing relevant information. There is some sort of judgment passed on by the viewer when they see a mugshot of a person who has been arrested, who is often not in the best state of mind after going through the ordeal of being taken into custody. The viewer looks at them with a sense of "well, at least I'm not doing as bad as that guy." Unless there is a need for the audience to know what the person who was arrested looks like, showing the mugshots of offenders, especially those arrested for nonviolent crimes, just serves as an entertainment factor and does not convey relevant information to the audience. In my opinion, mugshots for nonviolent offenders are "want to know" information, not "right to know" information. Publishing mugshots also reinforces racial stereotypes, as Black people and other people of color are disproportionately arrested for nonviolent offenses more than white people.
By Kant's standards, choosing to stop publishing mugshots of nonviolent offenders would be considered ethical. Treating someone else the way you would want to be treated fits perfectly in this situation, as you would probably not want your mugshot on the internet forever if you ever got into trouble with the law. No one wants to be defined by their mistakes, but publishing mugshots of nonviolent offenders forces them to go through the ordeal of explaining what happened whenever their photo shows up in a Google search. Following Kant's Categorical Imperative would create a more compassionate newsroom that is actually in touch with the community it serves and cares about the people who live there. The principles of communitarianism would also apply in this situation, as it would benefit the entire community and may lead to positive change. Those who struggle with addiction may feel more inclined to seek help if they know that their mugshot will not be on the news if they are arrested for possession. They are able to keep their privacy and don't have to risk being publicly identified by the news if they decide to get help.
Privacy is definitely a tricky subject in journalism, especially in today's current world of online news. However, just because it can be difficult to navigate does not mean we shouldn't try to provide news that informs the public while protecting the right to privacy all individuals have. Digital privacy is a complicated subject, but not publishing mugshots of nonviolent offenders is a step in the right direction toward making sure journalists do not harm people in the course of their reporting by violating their privacy.
Comments