On The Media

At http://postsecret.blogspot.com/ there is a postcard related to the Cops "15 minutes of fame" subject. The images are only up for one week before they are replaced.

I really enjoy "On The Media" every week, and appreciate it's ability to simultaneously give background and insight to both major stories and those overlooked by Big Media (I especially enjoyed the thoughtful segment on the film Blade Runner on last week's show).

There are times, like in this segment, though, where the tone can veer toward the smug and condescending. Specifically, it struck me as a little tatseless to not challenge Rene Lesk's assertion that the people who sign releases to be on her police chase shows are morons (or "stupid," as she gleefully repeated) who seek nothing more the televised notoriety. Should we assume her reasons for wanting to be identified on National Public Radio are necessarily more highbrow?

This is a great idea for a segment, but in the event you ever do a follow-up on why people sign releases to appear on such shows, why not just find one and ask them?

Bryan makes a valid point to challenge the idea of calling these morons as, well, morons. But how can you not be smug and condescending when speaking of idiots that are more concerned about their own fame than the impending legal troubles they face?

For what purpose could anyone being arrested benefit from revealing their identity on national TV? There is simply no logic there.

It is a sure sign that someone is a fool if they sign a release form that says something to the effect of 'the producers are going to make money off your arrest and public humiliation while you receive nothing'.

If these criminals are indeed as 'stupid' as Lesk and company proclaim, we ought seriously to question whether the consent they give to broadcast their images is truly informed. The 'signature hounds' interviewed in this piece are downright gleeful in their sense of having got one over on their subjects, and it is clear they would never consent to such exploitation themselves.

The desire to impress one's neighbours, or to have one's rendition of 'Puff the Magic Dragon' aired nationally, or to curry favor in sentencing by complying with the nice TV people (bad cop, good producer) does not, to me, indicate a real understanding of the repercussions of such broadcast. I do not want to patronize the consenting arrestees by questioning their intelligence--but if those charged with obtaining this consent have such strong doubts as to the simple competence of these subjects, they have no right to imagine that having them sign away their rights against publication is in any way 'informed'.

I like Melanie's point about the alleged stupidity of the people who choose to appear on these shows, and the culpability of the people who induce them to do so. I work in a public health clinic, and if a patient were to come to us seeking a surgery or service they were not competent enough to consent to, then I would be obligated (ethically if not legally) to intervene for the sake of their safety. Regardless of their competence, I would be even more implicated in unethical (maybe even illegal) behavior, if, during the informed consent process, I misled them as to the nature or effect of their chosen service or surgery.

This second analogy gets at what I think Jim is wondering: why would someone do something so inexplicable as to consent to have their drunken rant or shirtless chase broadcast on television. Perhaps Ms. Lesk would be willing to sit for a discussion of a release-getters professional ethics. For instance, do subjects understand they are consenting to being on "Wildest Police Chases" or "America's Stupidest Criminals"? Or, as far as they know, are they releasing their images to be used in an "Untitled Law Enforcement Documentary"?

Aimee and Bryan just expressed the same concerns I had while listening to this story. Granted, "Cops" isn't trying to be the New York Times, but it still has to raise some serious questions of journalistic ethics when a media professional -- repeatedly, and with such relish! -- calls the people she covers "stupid."

In addition to the two points above, I also wonder how the presence and behavior of the video crew changes the interaction between police and suspect. Do people act more flamboyant on camera? Are they more likely to fight back or argue with the arresting officer? More likely to comply? More likely to confess? The cameraman stopping a suspect by threatening to "shoot" him was an egregious example, but to a lesser extent, the crew is interfering with every arrest they cover. This is pretty disturbing, given that the producers already believe the suspects are idiots who deserve the humiliation they're getting.

And I agree that these questions would have best been answered by interviewing someone who had actually signed such a release. There are plenty of them out there -- you could even have asked the producer to look in her big vinyl binder for their contact information!

I think some are thinking too much into this.

Don't be confused. These shows are not journalism. They are entertainment. You don't need releases for journalism. Releases are needed here because the producers are profiting from the criminals.

Are we listening to the same story on OTM? How is putting a bag over your head with no holes not stupid? How can anyone suggest criminals who have been caught are not stupid? The moment a cop shows up at your door, you have failed as a skilled criminal.

I don't know, Jim. You may not need a release in order to practice journalism, but if you're videotaping, editing and broadcasting the words, images and actions of another human being you probably need one. Do you presume that 60 Minutes doesn't get signed releases from their interview subjects? Or are they just entertainment, too?

You're kidding, right? I don't think you are familiar with releases. Videotaping, editing and broadcasting the words, images and actions of others is what journalism is.

Whether you do it as an informational program or as one that entertains is where you decide if a release is necessary.

Here's an example of California law...

(CIVIL CODE SECTION 3344-3346)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/3344-3346.html

As a news program, 60 Minutes is not obligated to secure releases.