Last week, a video was actively shared online which was allegedly filmed using a camera hidden in the office of the head of Rivne Military Recruitment Center. It depicts a serviceman who kisses two servicewomen in his workplace.
The first time when the video was published, it was on the Telegram channel of the so-called blogger Anatolii Sharii, on whom Ukraine imposed sanctions and who allegedly resides in Spain now. The discussion regarding the publication of this video mainly concerned the personal life of the serviceman and the ethics of his actions at the workplace. However, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics proposes a shift in the focus, looking at this case in terms of professional journalistic ethics.
Clause 3 of the Code of Ethics of a Ukrainian Journalist indicates that a journalist should treat a person’s private life with respect; at the same time, information that may violate privacy may be permissible if the public significance of the information collected and disseminated by the journalist is higher than the private interests of the individual.
Additionally, privacy boundaries of individuals who do not perform public functions — i.e., are not politicians, officials, or influential public figures — are higher. Further, important factors taken into account, for instance, by the European Court of Human Rights, include the circumstances of receiving information and the method of filming, as well as individuals’ expectations regarding whether they could be filmed under these circumstances.
The publication of the video poses the following questions in terms of professional ethics:
- Was the information in the video of public interest?
- Was it received legitimately?
- Did the media verify the information before publication?
- Did the media do enough to limit interference in the private life of individuals featured in the video?
Public interest. It is likely undeniable that during the war, information on possible violations committed by the head of a military recruitment center during office hours can constitute information of significant public interest. The boundaries of his privacy are lower than those of regular military servants; therefore, he could reasonably expect that attention to his activity could be higher.
Whether the information was obtained legitimately. It appears that the information was obtained from a camera set up in the workplace at the military recruitment center, of which the head of the center could be unaware. While overall, the presence of such cameras could be justified by the need to control the activity of recruitment center officials and countering corruption, the circumstances of this information ending up with the source of the publication remain unclear and may indicate a leak or other illegal method.
Verifying the accuracy of information. Several media indicated the original source of information. However, the fact that the original source was the channel of a person under Ukrainian sanctions, who was repeatedly involved in activities that may constitute a violation of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, should have prompted the journalists to exercise additional caution. Any sources that were previously used for coordinated attacks or smear campaigns against government agencies or institutions beyond legitimate criticism have to undergo additional verification and analysis to check whether they have hidden motives for publication of certain information.
Restrictions on interference with the privacy of video participants. The depiction of the head of the military recruitment office in the video is justified: his activity constitutes public interest, he is the main character of the video, and violations he commits in office may lead to negative consequences. At the same time, servicewomen who are portrayed in the video do not have the same status. This means that, while choosing to publish the video, the media should have taken measures to protect their identities. Information consumers should not be able to identify women, not least because it may cause their additional stigmatization in society due to gender stereotypes regarding women’s role in the military.
This case is definitely not the first time when Ukrainian media used information from questionable sources to chase sensationalism without considering respect for private life of individuals involved in the story. The Commission believes this violates the requirements of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist.
To avoid similar situations in the future, the Commission recommends that the media:
- pay attention to the original source of information and exercise particular caution with sources that previously violated the law or standards of journalistic ethics;
- if the decision is made to disseminate information from a questionable source, indicate additional facts about this source and about situations where such a media outlet or individual committed violations;
- assess the social significance of information and allow interference with private life of the individuals involved in the material by publishing their personal data or pictures only in cases when such publication constitutes priority social interest and affects public life;
- when analyzing social significance of information, analyze the publicity of every individual involved in the story separately and the potential impact of the publication on their rights;
- if the individuals involved in the story have different protection levels and privacy expectations, take action to prevent the identification of individuals in visual materials if such individuals are not public figures.