"Unethical" to record a phone interview?

Here's a question for you legal experts. If I live in a state where I can tape w/out disclosure and I'm talking to someone in, say, Florida (crossing state lines) do I have to disclose?

 

Not legally, I wouldn't think. But why wouldn't you?

 

You do, because they can sue you under Florida state law. If you're doing a call between states, assume the worst.

 

Good point. I agree you might face trouble in a civil court because it's all about where the plaintiff files.

But I stand by my point that criminally it depends from where the call was made.

 

I don't need to ask myself anything. First of all, I rarely even do phone interviews (since I left radio) because I don't like them. But theoretically, once you've identified yourself as a reporter doing a story, what the hell is the difference between tape recording and taking notes? It's all up to the interviewer what is going to be used anyway, so it makes no difference how the conversation is recorded. I gather you're not suggesting it would be cool to use quotes from *notes* of off the record comments, so it would be no more or less cool to use tape recorded quotes of such. I could be an ethical tape recorder and you could be an unethical note taker.

It's like 21 said, do you ask permission to take notes over the phone? That's ridiculous.

 

yup.

 

There is absolutely no way that recording an interview, after you've ID'd yourself as a reporter, is against the law or unethical. In fact, it's more ethical than not recording it.

And yeah, telling someone that the conversation is being recorded will sometimes have an effect on it. It adds a sense of formality to it, a seriousness. If I've got a secretary on the phone who's telling me all about how her boss, the head coach, has been sending weekly payments to a player's mother, I'm not asking this woman if it's OK to record the interview. She knows who I am. She knows what I do. Stopping her right before she gets into the dirt to tell her that I'm going to record the interview is, 1. Stupid, and 2. Creating an unnecessary opportunity to have this woman back out.

You can call that immoral, unethical, illegal or whatever the hell you want to call it. But tomorrow morning, I'll have a nice story in the paper that, because of my recording, no one can deny and I will have broken no laws.

 

Um, there are several states where it's illegal to record someone without your knowledge. Doesn't matter that you're a reporter.

As far as a recorder being the same as a No. 2 pencil - you're fooling yourselves. If there wasn't a difference you guys wouldn't be so chicken to tell the person that you're taping them.

 

PS. If I can't trust you to tell me you're recording our conversation. How can I trust you to use that recording responsibly?

 

The difference is the same reason I'll sometimes put away the tape recorder in a face-to-face interview: it can chill and stifle the conversation.

If I'm on the phone (in a state that does not require me to inform you I'm recording), and I tell you, 'This is 21, SJDailyNews, can I talk to you about that thread where you said blah blah blah?' And you say, 'Sure, whaddaya need?' You know you are talking to the media, and your words will be documented in some way, regardless of whether I'm writing it down or recording you. What difference does it make to you? I'm not going to do anything illegal with the tape, I'm going to use it to write the story--the same way I'll use my notes or emails you sent me or any other material I gathered, legally and ethically.

As for the question above about interstate phone calls---go with the tougher laws. A plaintiff can sue you in either state, and the stricter state could prevail.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong with saying, 'hey, I just want to be sure i get it all right, so I'll record this.' But after you say it, take another couple minutes to change the subject, talk about something unrelated and casual, so the other guy doesn't hear 'Recording!' before he wrestled with his first answer.

 

Find one case in which the law agrees with you.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. The recording law you're citing protects the recording of private conversations. The very fact that you're speaking with a reporter removes the privacy factor, unless, of course, that person asked to go off the record. In which case, your recording will prove that and protect your ass.

Like I said before, informing someone that they're being recorded is an awkward, unnecessary intrusion into the conversation that will very likely result in the person you're interviewing not being as open as they normally would.

Telling someone that you're recording the conversation is like telling them you plan to write down what they say. It's idiotic. After you've ID'd yourself, if that person doesn't know that you're recording their statements in some form, that's tough shit.

 

How about an entire column from Poynter Institute, Dog?

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=86432

Excerpts:

Do I live in a state that requires me to ask for permission to record?

Twelve states have their own laws covering surreptitious recording. They require varying degrees of consent from the parties involved in phone interviews. In Florida, the consent of all parties involved in a recorded conversation must be granted:

It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.

In other states, it is enough for a reporter to announce that he is recording so that all parties involved are informed.

Journalists in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada and New Hampshire are subject to similar rules, with similar potential consequences for breaking the law: jail time, fines and both criminal and civil charges.

What could happen to me if I press the button without asking for permission?

These types of laws are difficult to prosecute, largely because sources often don't know that they have been recorded. But choosing to record a source without his or her knowledge is just as much an ethical issue as a legal one. Trust and transparency are among the most closely held values of journalism. It is legal to record an interview without a source's consent in most states. But its appropriateness in those cases is left for the journalist to decide.

"Surreptitious taping in a one-party state, even if it's legal for one party to know… is something that should be rarely used," said Al Tompkins, broadcast/online group leader at Poynter. Journalists should record without permission "only in situations of great journalistic importance, great gravity and only if there is no other way to get the information," he said.