“They successfully carried this out by becoming the neighborhood peeping Toms, exposing to social media that nothing is off limits in their world.”
As social media and news outlets alike buzzed with the news that Sean Spicer resigned from his position as White House press secretary, Reuters took things to a creepy new level. The news agency posted up outside of Spicer’s residence and broadcast a live feed of his house, which drew strong criticism from both sides of the aisle. Twitter users quickly condemned the live feed, as Reuters made a weak attempt to justify broadcasting the private residence of a public figure by hoping that Spicer would arrive and comment further on the situation he had just commented on.
Reuters eventually removed the live feed after coming under severe fire by users who found the live feed disturbing. Sean Spicer wasn’t at home at the time, nor were there any indications that he was en route to his residence. In fact, he was currently at the White House when the vultures began staking out his residence.
Although news breaks at a lightening fast pace, sources of that news seem to be abandoning ethics more and more in recent times in the name of headlines and ratings. With the recent scandal involving CNN—which resulted in the resignation of three employees—improving methods of journalism should be a no brainer for most outlets. It’s understandable that reporting the next big story is the bottom line for these agencies. Using this method of reporting, however, isn’t understandable. Not only is Sean Spicer a member of the United States Armed Forces, he is the father of 2 small children. He’s not the President of the United States, nor does he hold an office that would call on news media to report from his private residence. Reuters surely thought they were about to break the next headline and create social media buzz regarding Sean Spicer. They successfully carried this out by becoming the neighborhood peeping Toms, exposing to social media that nothing is off limits in their world.
When Reuters decided to broadcast a live feed of the private residence of Sean Spicer, they compromised their integrity as a legitimate news source. Where do journalists and news agencies draw the line? There seemed to be little concern for Spicer’s small children, his wife, or his own personal safety as a member of the Armed Forces—who often find themselves targeted. The shocking new low of broadcasting a live feed of someone’s personal residence begs the question: Where does the ethical side of journalism come into play?
President Donald Trump has blasted the mainstream media as being “fake news” and reporting information irresponsibly. Reuters seemed to be more interested in chasing headlines than they were about the safety of children. While I agree—to an extent—that Sean Spicer is fair game in terms of reporting, his children are not. His private residence is not. The negligent actions taken by Reuters illustrate how the credible media is becoming more like the money hungry paparazzi hiding in bushes, stalking celebrities for their next big payday.
