"Unethical" to record a phone interview?

[KJIM]

The recording laws aren't just for interviews. They're for all phone conversations. Think "this call may be recorded" when you call service centers or anything like that.

 

[SF_Express]

the laws are there to protect against wire-tapping, not reporter's interviews.

Sorry, Shockey, but I think you and your lawyers are just plain wrong on this one.

In certain states, telephone conversations cannot be taped without both parties agreeing to it. The Florida statute, for example, makes no distinction about reporters or interviews or anything else:

Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).

The only leeway I see in there is for felony vs. misdemeanor, and you only have that wiggle room once.

Not to make this any more than a constructive, professional conversation, it's important that the younger people here understand this and not start taping (depending on their state) without knowing exactly what the law is.

 

[SF_Express]

One thing to add:

Yeah, most interview subjects might not object to being taped in principle.

But if you've got a troublesome one, and he denies saying something, and you say, "But I've got it on tape," then you're screwed. So you lose that defense/backup. Or, you can't refer to the tape anyway.

Better to just be up front and not worry about it.

 

[21]

Would you tell someone in a phone interview, 'And I'm writing all of this down, okay??'

Or if you tell them you're recording the interview, and they say, 'Um no, I'd rather you don't,' are you doing to say 'Oh, sorry, okay'?

It's an interview. If you've ID'd yourself, and you're within the law, you're doing your job.

And the only time that recording becomes an issue is when they say you misquoted them...and you can prove you didn't. By that point, you'll still be within the law, and you'll also be right.

 

[Clerk Typist]

21: Unless you're in one of the 12 states where multi-party consent is needed. If they say no to the recording, and you record, and then misquote, and they beef, and you reveal the recording, and they take you to court ... good luck! You might win the case but also have to update your resume.

 

[ADifferentOkie]

I don't always tell the other party when I'm recording, though I do most of the time. It's not the law in my state, so legally, that doesn't matter.
I do think it's unethical to just call, not identify yourself as a reporter (i.e. do it undercover) and then record it.
But as long as you make it clear you're a reporter and interviewing them, I don't think there is any ethical issue here.

 

[Oz]

From an ethical standpoint, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it--but you should tell the subject. I always ask the person before recording the interview: "Do you mind if I record this conversation? I want to make sure I don't miss anything and that I quote you accurately."

Exactly. I've never had someone tell me that they had a problem with me taping the conversation. It helps that we don't put audio clips on the Web, of course.

 

[Tom Petty]

I don't think it unethical at all. I think it unethical if you dont let the other party know you are doing it.

i'm with slappy on this one.

 

[JackS]

Coming from a radio background, I think recording any kind of interview or public statement, be it in a conference or one-on-one setting, is fair game, regardless of whether or not the subject can see a tape recorder rolling, over the phone or otherwise.

It must be assumed by the subject that they are "on the record" in such a situation, as long as they know who you are (a member of the media). In my mind, it would be up to them to say they DID NOT want to be recorded. Asking them is nothing more than a courtesy on your part. It's not a bad practice, but you're under no obligation.

I mean, heck, should I have interrupted John Chaney's "death threat" against John Calipari to ask if it was OK to have my tape recorder on?

I only see turning on a tape recorder as unethical if the person being recorded does not know who you are. The phone aspect makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Write-brained]

On a thread about cell phone recording devices, two posters said it was unethical to tape-record a telephone interview.

I need to make a BIG clarification here: I said it's unethical to record conversations without telling the subject. There's nothing wrong with taping someone as long as they know it. heck, then TV and radio couldn't make a living ... (now that you mention it ...)

 

[Write-brained]

I've taped a lot of phone conversations. One of my past jobs required all interviews be taped and that we notify people they were being taped or we couldn't run the quotes. It was a bit extreme but I do think people should be told. Why?

1. We're reporters. We should be upfront and honest about all things we do to gain and hold the public's trust.

2. Put yourself in the subject's position. Let's say you gave an interview, talked to the reporter off-hand for a little while and maybe even told him something off the record. Wouldn't you be nervous/pissed if you somehow found out it's all on tape?

3. What's your excuse for not telling the person they're being taped? What are you afraid of? That they won't talk to you? That they won't let you tape it? You need to ask yourself this.

I've read through some of the posts on here. Obviously you can tape shirt in public places. I'm just talking about one one one interviews.

 

[jaredk]

My mistake. I mis-read Write-brained's original comment.

Still, it's no more unethical to tape a phone call without telling the subject than it is to use a No. 2 pencil without telling 'em...