I have previously noted my thoughts ( http://bit.ly/ar3Fqz ) on the effects of technology on opinion.
I do not condone Roaul Moats actions.
Following the case of Roaul Moat, as a contemporaneous example, an uncertainty has presented. The uncertainty is whether personal information in case’s such as Moat’s, is managed, by the media and other contributors, ethically. There is an extensive code of practice (http://bit.ly/du8oOL) which, to the layperson, could be interpreted subjectively. It is from the laypersons persons perspective that I wish debate my uncertainty.
I do not believe “doorstep journalism” is accurate; particularly when a situation is on going and clearly affecting the lives of those in near proximity. Information of a personal nature may in the opinion of the individual presenting it, be accurate: however, where there is no “opportunity to reply” to this information, there is no corroboration, ergo no accuracy. Hence to put this information of a personal nature, into the public domain could be seen as unethical.
An appropriate arena in which to discuss personal information would be an enquiry or inquest where the details could be discussed in a less emotive environment; with more objective conclusions drawn up on and reported.
Was it in the public interest, during the on going situation, to disrespect Moats privacy? A point to which he referenced. I do not believe it was. Based on an opinion (right or wrong) that the editors code of conduct is very clear on privacy, even with the caveat of being in the public interest.
It is my opinion that the personal information reported in the media on this occasion was done so unethically. Moreover, if personal information is in the public interest, then this should come in to the public domain post inquest or enquiry.
Reflections of Richard Ogden 