Foundation's
first national roundtable debates privacy and the right to know

Judy Woodruff from the Cable News Network was the moderator.

Panelists respond to the question, "Is privacy dead?"

JANE HEALY, managing editor of The Orlando Sentinel: ''There's always time to think of the ethical issues.''

NICK CLOONEY, Cincinnati Post columnist and cable TV host of American Movie Classics, said if privacy is not dead, ''it is comatose.''

THOMAS GREER, vice president and senior editor of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland: Some members of the media may be abusing the power of the press and becoming ''fat and sassy and answering to no one. The American people are tired of that.''

ANN LEWIS, director of the White House Office of Communications and assistant to the president: ''Gossip is sort of leaping into the news media ... There ought to be some sense of fair play.''

LOUIS D. BOCCARDI, president and CEO of The Associated Press: ''Shoving a microphone in the face of a grieving mother is going too far.''

BOB BURDICK, editor of the Rocky Mountain News, said different standards should be employed for private and public figures. ''I think that is part of the price of fame.''

RICHARD OPPEL, editor of the Austin American-Statesman: (on growing public distaste over media intrusion into privacy) ''The American people are not stupid.''

CYNTHIA TUCKER, editorial page editor of The Atlanta Constitution: (on reporting private aspects of a public figure's life) ''It's clear there has been a dramatic change over the last 30 to 40 years."

TIM GALLAGHER, editor of the Ventura County Star: (regarding a written code of ethics) ''Trying to get journalists to agree on anything is like herding cats.''

JANE KIRTLEY, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Privacy might become a ''rubber stamp'' used by government to justify withholding information the public has a right to know. ''The media, for all its faults, is the closest thing to an independent observer (of the government) we have.''

ANGUS McEACHRAN, president and editor of The Commercial Appeal: (regarding the problems of promulgating a code of ethics addressing the right of privacy) ''If you had 10 journalists in a room, you'd have 11 codes of ethics.''

By LEN PENIX
Reporter, The Cincinnati Post

In the 1930s, newspapers rarely printed photographs of President Roosevelt in a wheelchair.

In the 1960s, President Kennedy's purported extra-curricular activities were never investigated or reported ­ even though he may have been involved with a pretty Soviet spy.

Today, however, the media has lost its shyness about reporting on the private lives of public figures.

Friction between freedom of the press and the right of privacy was the topic of the first Scripps Howard Foundation National Roundtable, held Feb. 14 in Cincinnati.

More than 300 communications professionals, community leaders and interested citizens attended the event, which was organized by the American Press Institute. Eleven panelists ­ a media Who's Who ­ discussed the issue, "Is privacy dead?"

"If it's not dead, it is comatose,'' said panelist Nick Clooney, a Cincinnati Post columnist and cable TV host of American Movie Classics.

Consider this: In the midst of a White House sex scandal, President Clinton's approval rating is rising.

What's wrong with this picture?

The strong economy and other variables might have contributed recently to the president's high approval rating.

But Ann Lewis, director of the White House Office of Communications and assistant to the president, thinks her boss might be winning sympathy from a public annoyed with what it considers the media's incessant intrusion into private matters.

She said she believes the public feels sympathy for the president as he endures daily news reports about his sex life that may, or may not, be accurate. This sympathy has helped bolster his approval ratings, she believes.

Lewis was the only representative of the government at the discussion. Other participants included Scripps editors Angus McEachran, The Commercial Appeal; Tim Gallagher, the Ventura County Star; and Bob Burdick, the Rocky Mountain News; in addition to Louis D. Boccardi, president and CEO of The Associated Press; Thomas H. Greer, vice president and senior editor of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland; Jane Healy, managing editor of the Orlando Sentinel; Jane E. Kirtley, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Richard Oppel, editor of the Austin American-Statesman; and Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of The Atlanta Constitution.

The forum was planned before accusations that President Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky when Lewinsky was a White House intern.

Now, the news about Lewinsky has brought the conflict between freedom of the press and the right of privacy into sharper focus, said Judy Woodruff, the Cable News Network anchor who served as discussion moderator.

Burdick said anyone elected president of the United States should expect to lose a great deal of his personal privacy. ''When the government is investigating the president of the United States, the public has a right to know and in a timely fashion,'' he said.

Greer said: ''You cannot apply the same standards of privacy you would apply to a private person to the president.''

Burdick added he believes the press should employ different standards of scrutiny for private persons and public figures.

Public figures who seek the media spotlight for fame and fortune should be held to a higher standard than a private person who prefers to stay out of the limelight, he believes.

Kirtley said a ''sliding scale'' should be used because ''different people have different expectations of privacy.''

Lewis said Lewinsky's friends and family have been exposed to intense media scrutiny even though they never sought the public spotlight.

She said the press has ''camped out on the front lawn'' of the home of Lewinsky's father. ''There ought to be some sense of fair play,'' she said.

Tucker agreed that when someone is ''thrust through no fault of their own'' into the spotlight, it ''makes the average citizen uncomfortable.''

Tucker said modern technology allows millions of people to know intimate facts about a person ''they don't care about.''

Boccardi believes reporters should exercise common decency and sensitivity. ''Shoving a microphone in the face of a grieving mother is going too far,'' he said.

Newspapers and broadcast media should have written standards and ethics regarding the reporting of privacy issues, said Clooney. But, he said, ''Half of the newspapers in the U.S., if the polls are to be believed, do not have written standards.'' He said many TV stations also lack them.

Greer said the lack of a written code of ethics does not mean that a newspaper acts unethically when addressing privacy issues. He also said written standards ''can be dangerous'' because in libel suits, ''Lawyers can hang you on your own code of ethics.''

Drafting written standards would not be easy, said Gallagher, adding: ''Trying to get journalists to agree on anything is like herding cats.''

McEachran agreed: ''If you had 10 journalists in a room, you'd have 11 codes of ethics.''

Gallagher warned that laws might be passed putting privacy standards into force if the media fail to adopt them voluntarily.

Boccardi said each story should be weighed to determine if it would cause an unwarranted intrusion into private affairs.

Woodruff noted that the media are ''very competitive,'' and deadlines leave little time for introspection and protracted examination of the privacy considerations raised by each story.

Healy disagreed: ''There's always time to think of the ethical issues,'' she said. She conceded ''newspapers have the luxury'' of more time for contemplation than broadcast stations, which have more immediate deadlines.

Tough deadlines and competition with other media can lead to inaccuracies particularly when privacy issues are involved, said Lewis.

''Gossip is sort of leaping into the news media'' because journalists are not spending enough time to verify their facts, she said.

Many journalists feel, ''This is so hot, we can't take time to check because someone else will beat us to it,'' she said.

But Kirtley said most journalists take the time to verify their facts. ''Given the number of facts in a newspaper in a year, it's a wonder they don't get more wrong.''

Many of today's privacy issues involve people, such as victims of crime, who never sought the public's attention. A Scripps Howard poll released to coincide with the roundtable revealed, for example, that most people believe the names of robbery victims should not be used.

But Kirtley said the police persuaded the press in her hometown to not report about the existence of a serial rapist because of concerns it might interfere with a criminal investigation. Three women were raped while the press remained silent and the investigation continued, she said.

Government, she said, intrudes into the personal lives of

private citizens with much more frequency and force than the

media. She warned that privacy could become a ''rubber stamp'' used by government to justify withholding information the public has a right to know.

Boccardi noted that Terry Anderson, the former chief Middle East correspondent for The Associated Press who was held captive for 2,455 days after being kidnapped in March of 1985, tried to get the U.S. Government to release his file. But the government refused, saying the privacy of his captors needed to be protected,

''The media, for all its faults,'' Kirtley said, ''is the closest thing to an independent observer we have.''

Media Pay Price
For Free Speech

By THOMAS HARGROVE and GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
Scripps Howard News Service

Most Americans believe journalists should face criminal punishment, and even prison, if they violate the privacy of a citizen who is not a celebrity.

The public overwhelmingly believes that newspapers and television stations either "often" or at least "sometimes" violate basic privacy rights, according to a poll of 1,014 adults conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.

The strong anti-media sentiment on privacy issues comes even though a majority of Americans who have been the subject of a news story indicate they believe the reporting about them was accurate.

The poll found that people recognize the complexities of privacy rights. They were asked to pretend they are the editors of their hometown newspapers and to decide a series of hypothetical questions involving privacy rights taken from real-life circumstances. Their answers were ranging, often siding with disclosure even if it means profound embarrassment for individuals and their families.

Reporting that received the highest support in the poll involved whether to disclose police claims that a prominent politician has committed suicide or a medical examiner's report that the body of a girl found dead in the home of her millionaire parents had signs of sexual abuse. These two news scenarios were supported for publication by 61 percent and 52 percent respectively.

Yet public opinion was mixed on whether to report the suicide of a local businessman, the name of a 16-year-old murder suspect or the identity of the winner of a $10 million state lottery.

Fifty-six percent of the poll respondents said journalists should "be subject to criminal prosecution and even prison if they violate a citizen's privacy." A third said they belive such privacy invasions occur "often" and 45 percent believe they occur "sometimes."

But the poll found that few Americans have personal reasons to be angry. Only 26 percent said they have been the subject of a newspaper or television story, and of that group 85 percent said the story was accurate.

Sixty-three percent said newspapers "generally do a good job" of reporting the news fairly, and 26 percent disagreed. Television stations got good marks from 58 percent of the respondents and a negative rating from 32 percent.

Survey participants were interviewed by telephone Jan. 7 - 20 after their households had been selected at random by computer. A survey of this type has a margin of error of 4 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. That means that 95 percent out of 100 times, a poll of this type will produce results within 4 percent of the results if every household in America had been contacted.