Editors at The Boston Globe stood behind their decision to release the name of a woman who tipped off the FBI about a fugitive gangster, which led to his arrest. Anna Bjornsdottir was named in a front-page story as the person whose anonymous tip led to the capture of James “Whitey” Bulgar.
Their decision to release the woman’s name is drawing criticism from many, including the Boston Herald, which ran a counter-story that said their rival paper put the woman’s life in jeopardy by releasing her name.
The editors at The Boston Globe said that they debated for a significant time over whether to release her name or not, but ultimately decided to go with the latter. The reason for releasing her name was based upon the fact that the public interest of the story out-weighed the chance of putting her at risk.
This is a faulty argument. When editors say that they did something out of “public interest”, they are walking a slippery slope. Public interest is never a valid excuse to trample on somebody’s privacy, or in this case, put someone’s life in danger.
In order to make a decision that risks invading privacy or endangering an individual, their needs to be substantially more than just public interest present. Instead of a public ‘want-to-know’, editors must be assured they have a public ‘need-to-know’ when making such bold decisions.
If releasing this woman’s name would make the people in Boston more safe or better off, then maybe it would be acceptable to release her name. But, knowing her name does nothing to improve the lives of those people, it may just merely satisfy their curiosity. In no way is that an acceptable reason to put someone’s life at risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment