I used to think that the most unprofessional thing a publication could do was to write an editorial lambasting another publication for making a mistake, but I think I’ve found something new. While reading a newspaper from this area last week, I discovered that it had revealed the identity of the previously anonymous donor of RPI’s $360 million record-breaking gift from several years ago. I don’t know why this person chose to remain anonymous, but I believe that point is moot. It was their decision to do so, and their reasons are their own. Some people were obviously interested in knowing the identity of the donor, but does this interest really outweigh that individual’s right to privacy?
I believe it does not, and I believe that this article is just another indicator of the serious problem that exists in today’s media. Employees of news outlets of all forms are constantly under pressure to get the juicy gossip, the most sensational tidbit of information, no matter what the consequences of that information is. I think it’s disgraceful that the news has been degraded to just pandering to the reader like this, but what do I know? I’m just an engineering student writing for a newspaper in my spare time.
I would think there is a general consensus that everyone has a right to personal privacy, but reporters seem to just toss this out the window when it comes to “celebrities.” Popular people and people who do uncommon things are all of a sudden denied their privacy because “the people have a right to know.”
I have known the identity of the anonymous donor for some time now with a degree of certainty, but you’ll notice that my news section has not published anything on it. This is because I believe that the benefits of the exposure did not outweigh the donor’s right to privacy. There is simply no reason to do so that stands out in my mind as exceptional.
I’m sure that this newspaper did not even consider the ramifications of their action. Obviously this donor felt like he should remain anonymous when giving a gift of such magnitude. Is it possible that he wouldn’t have given it if he had to put his name with it? Will the exposure of his identity prevent others from acting in kind in the future, thus lowering the amount of donations RPI receives and hindering its ability to perform? I think this is a legitimate concern, and one that had to be addressed even if one feels that it’s unnecessary to protect an individual’s privacy.
My basic idea here is an age-old concept that was taught to most of us while we were children: just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Sure, it was easy to pull up financial records and track donations. Sure, no one can stop you from writing an article on the issue. But is it really necessary? This publication should ask itself: what is the reader gaining by knowing this person’s identity, and what is that person losing?
