Call 911 - Private Or Public?
I found this story, and the proposed legislation, interesting. I happen to be a strong believer in the right to privacy - yet the public's right to know can sometimes take necessary precedence. Where is the line? When does necessity cross over into the realm of sensationalism?
If I call 911, I am not considering the possible ramifications of having my voice and my words broadcast across the airwaves. After all, I'm no one special. But if the operator on the other end of the line doesn't do their job and ends up being investigated - should that make my frantic phone call public? Suppose I think my life is in danger ... I call to report my fears. Suppose I witness another's life being threatened and call to get them help. Anonomously. If the media picks it up as a "hot story", should the transcript/recording of my call be released? My permission would not be required.
I wonder. If I considered all the possible scenarios, would I hesitate to call? Would the person who might save my life by dialing 911 hesitate?
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/15/ban-911-calls-from-tv/
I'd call in a heartbeat.
It's important to remember, the press in the US, in its many forms, is a profit-driven institution. Ratings (which equate to ad sales, which equate to revenue, which equate to profits) drive journalism, and the viewers/listeners/readers tend to want the sensational. Screaming headlines, celebrities gone bad, and missing white women have displaced serious reporting and analysis - because that's what the audiences respond to, according to the numbers.
That public entities seem to think turning over 911 call tapes is somehow a good idea, I don't understand. Yes, in theory it's public information - since it's public property. And I question whether the same people who demand that every bit of governmental operations be as public as possible would also demand that their 911 call recording be made public.
It's not an easy question, and I personally am not wild about how loose with such things government agencies and the press are, yet none of that would stop me from calling in when it was needed. At that point, it's not about me.
May 15, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article Barefooted, thanks for posting. Every time I hear a 911 call on the news, after cringing I would ask why anyone would want to listen to someone in clear distress. Like The Old Grouch said they are used for sensation and ratings, but there is no lesson to be learned from listening to them.
Even though I don't like how they are broadcast, I wouldn't think twice about calling 911 if myself or someone around me needed help. I don't think privacy would be in my mind during those moments.
May 15, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor mine. Nice to meet you, Jennie.
May 15, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No! The tape should not be released and there should be strong legislation punishing anyone who disseminates such tapes.
What if it is a mob hit? The caller's life might be at stake. Mob, street gang...
Good solid point to be considered Missy.
May 15, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're safe here, DD. Apparently, according to the CNN article, in MN a court order is needed to publicly air a 911 tape.
May 15, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As it should be, don't you think? If the tapes are required to prove/disprove a case in court then a judge can decide. For a television station, etc. to elect that it makes a good story strikes me as a rediculous violation of the caller's right to expect privacy. If a person doesn't sign a waiver, their likeness can't be shown - hence the obscured faces. What's the diference?
May 15, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
On obscured faces in "reality" shows...
There is no "expectation of privacy" on a public right-of-way. Anyone walking by on the street can be shown in a news piece (not a drama or feature film) without a release. The exceptions are for when it would represent someone as being involved in something they are not, are involved in a criminal incident but not yet charged, or are minors. (Remembering from my field shooting days...)
So if I'm shooting a news piece and you walk by, as a passerby, you're just background. If it's a piece on street drug sales and it implies you're somehow involved, you have something of a legit case. (If it's me cutting, you get obscured - blurring works better than the old-school mosaic, by the way, as squinting tends to "de-mosaic" people!) If you're involved yet not charged, you get obscured. If you're a minor, involved or not, you're likely obscured.
If it's a dramatic piece - as opposed to journalism, a release is absolutely required. The difference is as simple as fact and fiction.
And sadly, what a TV station (news director, usually) thinks is a "good story" these days might well just mean one that gets ratings, as opposed to one that tells an important truth. Want a good example? Count how many investigative pieces are done on major advertisers these days. You'll have quite a few fingers left over...
As for 911 tapes, which we've wandered well away from, even as a viewer I'd rather not be subjected to them. I don't particularly want to hear someone in terror or misery - I'm not quite that sort.
And in cases where they are evidence, well, I've made my views on evidence vs. headlines known in some of the torture photo discussions.
May 15, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, my, my!!! The photographer side of Grouch arises to the challenge. Very fine analysis. No kidding.
The public sphere.
And I would not be afraid personally. We have gangland well under control up here. Two motorcycles and a couple hundred bicycles is the extent of our gangland.
I had no idea that Minnesota passed such a law. Good to know.
May 16, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read it in the article Missy cited, that's all.
May 16, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those endless replays of some poor soul calling for help have always irked me. Not only is it invasive, it's lazy journalism. It's cheap news. The drama of a story is already written and delivered...all the news room has to do is a little cutting and editing and tah dah! A juicy little tidbit for the hairdo to yammer about. No feet on the ground chasing a story, no writing, no cameraman or soundman needed, no thinking required.
On a personal note, I would never hesitate to call 911 in an emergency, for myself or for a stranger.
May 15, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really interesting topic. I pretty much agree with you. There may be some extenuating circumstance that might justify releasing a call, but that should be through a court order (and the person on the call should be given an opportunity to present their view). The assumption should always be in favor of non-disclosure.
But the concern that someone might later broadcast the call wouldn't even enter my mind in an emergency (well, now it might .... but that's just 'cause it might make me think of your blog).
May 15, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the 'other' Air Force One flew the skies of New York for a photo shoot, people were understandably terrified. Did the release of the 911 calls enable people around the country - and in Washington, especially - to better understand their panic? Did they serve a purpose? Or did they simply serve to stir the pot even further?
I wonder what those who placed the calls thought upon hearing them aired.
May 15, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've only called 911 once. My daughter was having her first Grand Mal seizure. By the time I hung up, there was already a state trooper there competent enough to give her needed care, as well as,needed reassurance to her parents. I would never hesitate. As the grouch mentioned, it wasn't about me. I don't care what kind of fool I made of myself.
Half the town being in my living room within 15 minutes....? I'd say I was more worried about that, but not really.
Maybe 911 calls should have an umbrella, though. I see your point.
May 16, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, no one should ever hesitate - especially when a life is at stake. 911 is an essential line to immediate help when it is desperately needed.
If you were concerned, however, that "half the town" would show up, would you have wanted your call broadcast on the local news? You would likely not be considered a fool by anyone. Yet your words, spoken to an operator with an urgency of unimaginable need, should remain private unless you choose otherwise.
May 16, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here,s the solution, barefooted. If you call 911 and don't say a word and even hang up, they will call back right away. And if you don't answer, guess what? They send a police car immediately!
So if you have an emergency, they'll come. Even if you don't say a word! I'm not kidding.
May 16, 2009 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
True story here. I once had a phone that I had programmed with 911, just in case. Mr. TheraP was vacuuming one day and knocked the handset off the phone and accidentally that button got pushed. But he did not notice either thing. Till the doorbell rang! It was the police! Coming to save him!
Before that, I had accidentally pushed that button when trying to make a call. Hung up. They called me back! Instantly! I apologized. (Right then I should have deleted the speed dial on 911 - before Mr. TheraP made his mistake above.)
May 16, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, my daughter dialed it when she was 2, playing with the phone. The police did show up and wanted to see that she was OK and everything.
I kept the phone out of reach after that.
I'd forgotten about that.
=D
May 16, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really a great idea IMO, because they don't know whether to send an ambulance or the police. In fact, they would be more likely to send the police under the assumption that the person calling was being prevented from speaking by someone. I can't imagine calling for help and intentionally not giving information that they would need, out of fear of it being played on air.
Besides, in the case of the really bad 911 operators, do you think they would automatically send someone right away? The last one I heard was the operator who was yelling at the little kid whose mother wasn't breathing -- she decided he was playing a prank -- I just don't think that an ambulance would have showed up if he hung up and didn't answer if she called back.
May 16, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The citizen in me says it should be private. The reporter says it should be public. As usual, the reporter wins.
No one wants anything they say in distress to be public. Ever. But the slope is too slippery -- we get into definitions of public/private persons as to who can have it disseminated against -- for example, if the Governor of Maine's wife calls for a domestic abuse complaint, I would want to be able to hear the call. It's public record. But what about the Mayor of Cicely, Alaska? What about the guy who's running against him? What about the guy who last week accused him of the same assault? We get ourselves into a case-by case situation on these things, and madness follows quickly.
Journalists run names. If they don't feel the obligation to run everyone's names, they lose the obligation to run anyone's. The same thing goes with these calls, as distasteful as some may find it.
May 16, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink