Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), more commonly known as drones, have been in the news for years now because of their military applications. They also became somewhat of a punch line when Amazon announced that they wanted to use them as a way to deliver packages (and they still do). Other businesses, including real estate firms, want to employ the aerial technology to capture more compelling video and images of their properties. News organizations are also clamoring to use drones in their reporting, but many people believe that the unmanned flying vehicles could have a major impact on the future of journalism, including significant ethical implications.
The Federal Aviation Administration regulates the commercial use of drones in the United States, and their rules and requirements are quite restrictive. To operate one for commercial use, you have to have a pilot's license; you have to receive a permit from the FAA, which CNN Money recently reported is "difficult to obtain.” A drone pilot can only operate the vehicle if it remains in his or her line of sight; the UAS can only be operated in daylight; it has to weigh 55 pounds or less; and it can only fly in unpopulated areas.
But FAA officials understand that the devices will sooner or later be a regular part of covering the news, and they are committed to working out issues associated with their use. In January, the FAA began collaborating with CNN to establish best practices for newsgathering using drones. According to a CNN article, the network is partnering with researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology to perform tests and gather data that will then be used by the FAA to help the agency refine its regulations regarding drones. In the article, CNN Senior Vice President of Legal David Vigilante explained, "Our aim is to get beyond hobby-grade equipment and to establish what options are available and workable to produce high quality video journalism.”
What's ironic is that internationally the use of drones to videotape news events is fairly common, even being used by American news organizations. For example, an article earlier this year published on the International Journalists' Network reported that producers for CBS’ “60 Minutes” employed drones to document the areas around Chernobyl three decades after the nuclear disaster there.
Given the inevitability of using drones to gather news, many people have begun to debate the practice's ethical implications. One of the major players on that front is Matthew Schroyer, an Urbana, Illinois-based journalist, drone designer, teacher and the founder of the Professional Society of Drone Journalists (PSDJ). He also heads a program called "Drones for Schools," funded by a National Science Foundation Grant that teaches high school students about drone technology.
One of the most interesting things to come out of the PSDJ is its Code of Ethics for Drone Journalists. The beginning of the document reads: "A code of ethics for drone journalists should be viewed as a layer of additional ethical considerations atop the traditional professional and ethical expectations of a journalist in the 21st century." Why is that extra layer needed? Primarily because of safety concerns related to a possible drone crash that could injure innocent bystanders. But that's not the only ethical issue related to using drones in journalism, and the PSDJ's Code of Ethics lists five major areas of concern: newsworthiness; safety; sanctity of law and public spaces; privacy; and traditional journalism ethics.
Most of what is contained in the organization's ethical code is sound, and the group admits that it is a work in progress and is soliciting input from others. That's a good thing because it doesn't address some of the ramifications that drones could have on the overall future of the profession of journalism. Making sure drone pilots are well trained and respecting the public's right to privacy are the PSDJ code's core tenets, but some of the more interesting ethical issues are much more nuanced.
A major concern is with news organizations using footage posted on social media that was taken by drones piloted by untrained non-journalists. Today, major news organizations consistently use images and video they get from social media in their reporting, and because more and more regular citizens are buying and using drones there will naturally be more of this kind of footage available online. If news organizations use this material, then it will just encourage more people to produce it, and we could end up with a sky full of drones piloted by amateurs at every major news event. This fire season in Southern California, helicopters and planes have at times been unable to help battle blazes because there were amateur drones in the sky above the fire. If news organizations use footage produced by drones in these circumstances it will only exacerbate this problem and lives could be at risk. One way to avoid this issue would be for major news organizations agree to limit the use of footage produced by drones not operated by journalists.
And while the PSDJ's code makes some excellent points about privacy issues, its biggest concern is with the privacy of non-public figures. The code states: "The drone must be operated in a fashion that does not needlessly compromise the privacy of non-public figures. If at all possible, record only images of activities in public spaces, and censor or redact images of private individuals in private spaces that occur beyond the scope of the investigation."
While that makes sense, the larger issue is the fact that drones are going to revolutionize the coverage of public figures. If you think paparazzi are a menace now, imagine a world in which a drone hovers above a celebrity’s backyard fence taking footage of them sunbathing or playing with their children. You actually don’t have to imagine it because it’s already happening. People are calling these intrusive UAS “drone-arazzis,” and a recent article in the Daily Mail reported: “A growing fleet of these machines is forcing celebrities to run for cover even inside their own homes, as cameras swoop in above swimming pools, tennis courts and balconies. Their lenses can even peer through open windows into bedrooms.”
Again, the only way to combat this would be for news organizations to completely avoid using drones in this fashion, and for them not to use any footage offered to them containing compromising images of public figures who are unaware that they are being filmed.
Another tricky ethical issue associated with drone use for news purposes is that drones could be used to reduce in-person coverage of events. What's to stop a TV network from just sending a drone to a breaking event instead of a reporter? The drone would get better footage, much more quickly, and that dynamic could lead to the elimination of jobs for journalists who report from the field. The ethical issue here is that while a drone might get a better visual perspective of an event, a reporter on the ground can gather information and make critical judgments about what he or she is seeing, hearing and feeling in a way that no drone ever could. Increased use of drones in that capacity could seriously threaten the incredibly important value that having a trained journalist on the scene provides.
In the near future, drones will become a major asset when it comes to gathering important footage that journalists can use to inform the public concerning breaking news, especially in situations like disasters where sending in reporters could put people in harm's way. That said, unless these machines are used ethically by news organizations, we risk creating a world in which the benefits they offer could be far outweighed by the compromises they create.
Add new comment