Trial by sousvei E


Rachel Broady on how secret recording is fast becoming a news form, with worrying consequences for the victims and journalism


mma West’s tight-lipped, slurring rant was watched by millions. She was filmed in secret on a tram by a fellow passenger using a mobile phone, and her two-minute racist outburst gained her immediate notoriety.


The film was put on YouTube and watched more than 11 million times, triggering thousands of comments. Twitter users lined up to call for her to be arrested, and worse, using the hashtag #MyTramExperience. Piers Morgan Tweeted: “I want this woman arrested, and deported. It makes me ashamed to be British.” Newspapers were quick to report on the outburst – sharing the video of Emma and her young son online again and again. She was described as “tram rant woman”, “tram racist” alongside “mother” and “dental nurse”. The BBC described her as “the latest in a string of miscreants to meet their come- uppance due to mobile phone cameras”. Ultimately, in response to a social media outcry, and as the video was shared by the global media, the police asked for witnesses. Emma West was arrested and threatened with prison. No-one on the tram had made a complaint. These stories are now commonplace. From a Starbucks


worker shouting at a customer, to a woman putting a cat in a bin or a man allegedly taking cocaine on a train – clips are uploaded to social media, then picked up by news organisations creating international, profit-making sensations from moments in people’s lives. Professor Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ’s Ethics Council, says this kind of reporting isn’t fair and accurate. “You would need to talk to the person concerned or others to get context for what was filmed. Usually this would be obvious, but then so would the fact that it was being filmed. “I think we need to handle with considerable caution video


taken of people without their knowledge, even if it is in a public place. There needs to be a public interest, in the actions filmed rather than what they might represent, in order to consider using it without at least seeking comment from the person concerned.” But caution is rarely taken and comment seldom sought. Instead these videos are shared immediately, often with descriptive, judgmental copy. The videos are debated, barely authenticated and viewed across the globe before the unwitting star’s name is even revealed, if it ever is.


18 | theJournalist Some academics argue that this form of ‘citizen


journalism‘can ultimately contribute to democracy, hold authority figures to account, be they police at demonstrations or politicians caught off-guard – but others suggest that what has been dubbed “sousveillance” creates a Panopticon, a constant surveillance resulting in altered behaviour and attitudes and perhaps, ultimately, passivity. Swedish academic Dr Agneta Mallén, a sociologist studying


citizen journalism, said: “Today, the Internet is the virtual local grocery store where we get news and information, and also discuss people we see. The viewers’ comments in these discussion threads can be stigmatizing and sometimes even be a kind of virtual punishment. This can be seen as a movement from punishing people behind locked doors – in prison – to a kind of public punishment.” Perhaps it is inevitable, in the fast-moving, competitive online media environment, that these videos are published without much, if any, research but this means, of course, much of the practice fails to meet the NUJ’s Code of Conduct. Can it ever be accurate or fair to report on content filmed


without a person’s permission and create global news stories from that secret film without interviewing them or even approaching them for a comment? Is this kind of intrusion ever in the public interest or just clickbait at best and creating a surveillance culture at worst? Is it too late to doorstep for a comment after the video has gone viral and already


Tales of cats, coffee and cocaine


Mary Bale put a cat in a wheelie bin and her actions, filmed by private security and put on Facebook, were condemned globally. Headlines asked: “Miaow could she?” others stated: “Cruel Cat Woman Named and Shamed”. Mary needed police protection. She ultimately admitted a charge of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and was fined £250. She said stress over her dad’s illness made her act out of character. The judge said: “The media


interest in this case has resulted in you being vilified […] I have taken that into account.” A headline on The


Sun’s website read: “City worker openly snorts coke on London Underground train” within hours of a video filmed on a mobile phone being handed to the newspaper. The Daily Mail described him as well-spoken and found his friends who expressed their concern. Later named as Tom Osborne, the man was quoted from the video as


saying, “I just like taking it.” An unnamed friend said he’d had a hard time lately. British Transport Police used Twitter to request information about him. A Starbucks barista


screamed at a customer. Her outburst was secretly filmed on a mobile phone placed on Facebook with the caption “too much attitude at Starbucks”, quickly going viral. Melissa, the barista, lost her job and the woman she shouted at was given a $100 gift card.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28