When looking at the case studies in our readings I found an interesting case that dealt with the releasing of controversial information, and the different reactions that came of it. The case took place in Uganda. The Monitor, the only independent paper in Uganda, was brought a photo from an unnamed source. The photo showed a young women being pinned down naked by men in Ugandan army uniforms. The picture showed the men shaving the women's genital area with scissors. Ugandan security agents were not pleased that there was a photo like this out there and they went after it to ensure that the photo was not released. This gave the paper a little added reason to publish the photo because they knew it held a certain amount a controversy which can be good for a newspaper. The paper was now in a tough predicament. The word was out that the paper had possession of this photo. Their credibility was on the line and they didn't want to seem as if they were involved in some kind of a cover up. The editor of The Monitor decided to print the picture on the back page with no story, just a caption.
The northern barracks where this photo was taken is the location of the United People's Defense Force, or UPDF. There has been a history of abuse in this area and as the reading states "It is in this context - a history of documented abuse - that The Monitor's editors made the decision to publish the photo." There was immediate reaction to the photo from a number of different groups. Some were very upset and other were fully supportive. Surprisingly, Uganda's women's rights group, and the national minister for ethics and integrity did not support it because they felt that women and children would be disturbed by the photo. Others felt it "promoted basic equalities and liberties for women."
The editors were later charged by the state with "sedition and publishing false news that could create fear and alarm." There was a trial in which the soldiers denied that the picture was true, saying that the uniforms didn't match the uniforms used by the UPDF. However, it was later determined that the officers were unaware of all the uniforms used. The defense lawyer for The Monitor was shot in the shoulder after his first day in court and Kandida Lakony came forward claiming she was the women in the photo. She claimed it was her ex-boyfriend in the photo. He was a soldier in the Gulu Barracks. Although the public was sympathetic to her testimony, Lakony was found guilty of lying and misleading the police. She was sentenced to 12 months in prison and died shortly after her release. After two years of trial the editors were acquitted of the charges.
If you'd like to check out the current online version of Uganda's The Monitor visit
http://www.monitor.co.ug
If I was presented with the decision of whether or not to publish a photo like this, the criteria I'd use to make my decision would be a mix of Mills Utility principle and Bok's ethical decision making. I would have to use the utility principle to think about the outcome of publishing such a photo. If I knew that I was in a country where if I released such a photo I could easily be charged with sedition, I would have to really think about if jail time was worth it. However, I would have to also consider that releasing this photo could expose this horrible behavior and possibly have a positive impact on the stoppage of such problems. Bok's model would come in when I had to think about if there are other ways to deal with this photo that would help me avoid losing credibility, and at the same time not raise a big ethical issue. Also, I'd have to think about how the people would respond to the picture, and if I could present it in a way that could breed a positive outcome. I think the editor did a good job making a decision. By publishing the photo he avoided anyone finding out they withheld information, and by not accompanying the photo with a story the editor was attempting to minimize a bad reaction. Given the context of the abuse in Uganda, releasing the photo was helping to expose the brutality of the abuse, which may cause people to fight for a change. It is taking a risk that the image could be harmful for women and kids, however, it does open peoples eyes to what could happen if things don't change.
I think media professionals will always struggle with getting entangled in secrets. As long as there is competition in media there will always be the fight for the most attention grabbing story. Whenever a media professional is competing for a strong story, often times they will have to dig for compelling information. This means they may come across secretive information, and must use critical decision making on how to handle the information. I think the only way to avoid getting entangled in secrets is to not dig for information. Any journalist that avoids digging deep for information will have a hard time coming up with a big time story.
No comments:
Post a Comment