Investigative Journalism in Natalee Holloway Case - ethical??? February 5, 2008

When I first saw the new update on the Holloway case regarding the investigative journalism by Holland’s reporter Patrick van der Eem, I couldn’t help but question the ethics behind the information gathering. Sure enough, as I found out on ABC news,  a key question in the case is whether the videotape will be admissible for evidence. There then comes the conflict between private and public information. The undercover reporter videotaped Van Der Sloot under private conditions, after he gained his trust, despite what the suspect actually admitted to on videotape. Also, the undercover reporter gained his trust through marijuana, something illegal - revealing another problem. The fact that a reporter had to resort to illegal means to gain the trust of the suspect is questionable, and despite the benefit of acquiring the information, it is still deception. The SPJ code of ethics states that reporters should “diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing; (…) balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed; and (…) remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” Even though the Holloway is an important, unsolved case in the media, there needs to be a balance between media’s role as news source and as watchdog. Having a reporter deal drugs hurts the credibility of the media and raises the question as to how far the media will go in order to collect information. Even though Van Der Sloot has been in the public eye, he deserves a right to a fair trial. The video is now part of pre-trial publicity that will infringe on his rights. Deception falls in to the gray area of what is ethically justified and what is not.