"Unethical" to record a phone interview?

And since you asked for a law, here's one. I'm always happy to educate ;D

http://www.courts.state.md.us/journalistguide2003.pdf

It wouldn't let me cut and paste but midway through the second graph of this "Journalist Guide to the Maryland Courts" it's pretty clear:

... A journalist wishing to tape must obtain the consent of all parties ..."

Just because you're a reporter doesn't mean you're above the law.

I've also read several articles but didn't get a link stating that if you're in a one-party state and record someone you called in a two-party state you could still face criminal charges in the two-party state.

Be careful out there ...

 

One more time, we're not talking about recording a private conversation, which is what these laws protect. We're talking about recording an interview. There is nothing illegal about that. And despite all your "educating," you've still not presented a case in which a reporter was found guilty of illegally recording an interview.

And you won't. While some might argue that you're being less than upfront, it's not illegal to record the interviews. Never has been, never will be. Because those are not private conversations. The second you introduce yourself as a reporter, the expectation of privacy is removed. That person understands that the conversation that will follow will be recorded in some fashion, whether it be by pen or by tape recorder.

Let me tell you now that I've got firsthand knowledge of this. I was involved in a case in which one side attempted to declare comments recorded by me as inadmissable due to the fact that I recorded a phone interview without telling the person I was interviewing that I was recording the conversation. The judge in the case said exactly what I'm saying now -- the wiretapping laws do not apply in this case because these are not private conversations. The person being interviewed by a reporter should reasonably expect his or her words to enter the public domain in some form.

 

This is weird, because it has me shaking my head at posters I respect here -- 21 and Shockey, among others -- but I don't get what you don't get.

In states where you can't record another party without permission, you can't record another party without permission, because it's illegal.

You don't need permission to take notes, because there's no law that says you need to get permission to take notes.

That's the legal difference.

Your status as a reporter provides exactly zero protection for you to record without permission. Nothing in the Florida statute says that. There is no "the second you introduce yourself as a reporter, the expectation of privacy is removed." Dog, I don't know about the case you're discussing, but I also don't know if it was in one of the states where permission is required. And "inadmissable" and "breaking the law" are two different things.

If you record without permission, and this comes to light because you use the tape to verify a quote that the speaker is now denying, you've admitted to committing a felony (in Florida, at least) and can be prosecuted. Whether you will be is another matter.

Now, you may find these laws ridiculous for reporters. That doesn't make it any less the law.

Finally, it's no big deal. Reporters in Florida know the law, they tell the interview subject they're being taped, and that's usually that.

 

i love and respect you, too, sf, but this entire discussion is silly, from what i can see and what i've been told, no reporter, to my knowledge, has EVER been burned by taping an interview subject's conversation -- on the phone or otherwise. this thread has gone on waaaay too long.

if there is any evidence to the contrary, i'd love to hear it. until then, i'll just troll.

these "laws" being quoted don't have a darn thing to do with what we do. sorry if that stance is found troubling to all you legal eagles.

 

You didn't ask for a case, you asked for a law. I gave you Maryland's, which specifically states a reporter in that state must tell the subject they're being recorded. It's in black and white. I don't know why you're still posting ...

And if reporters aren't telling the subjects they're being recorded, then it's no surprise there aren't a lot of cases hitting the courts. Doesn't make you any less unethical.

Now you're just being nutty. Just because I'm talking to them doesn't mean they're on the record.

Were you in a state requiring one person's consent or everyone's consent? Like we've said, it's not illegal in states like South Carolina to tape someone without their consent, just not very honest, but I find it hard to believe you're in one of the 12 states like Maryland.

 

Wow, shockey. Wow.

 

Add to my last post (I was interupted). I can't believe you would dismiss the laws like that. And you wonder why people refer to sports as the toy department.

And this thread is exactly what makes this board good. It's a good, civil debate.

 

my apologies if i came off snippy. must be the steroid i.v. treatments kicking in. causes mood swings.

 

Wasn't there a Miami Herald columnist who was fired in the past year for taping the rant of a suicidal local politician without the guy's knowledge?

 

I don't get why you think I don't get it.

In every post, I said you have to be within the law. If the law says you need consent, you need it. If it does not require consent, you do not need it. I was talking only about those states where you have the option of not disclosing a recording.

In no case are journalists above the law on this issue.

 

This an excellent site that covers much of what we're discussing here.

 

I vaguely remember that ... didn't the politician shoot himself in the lobby, or am I confusing two stories. I'll look it up later if no one else does ...