Tales of the Taping

The Bush Administration's dog-paddling through potentially hot seas in regard to secret domestic surveillance raises interesting questions about civil liberties, privacy, the U.S. Constitution and simple courtesy, for government right down to private citizens.
It might be decades - if ever - before we learn the extent of the surveillance, as well as how many lives have been saved and terroristic acts prevented along the way. We don't know whether Bush's efforts are heroic or a threat to basic freedoms.
At this point, I really don't have an opinion on it. If they were listening in on me, they would have been treated to such domestically threatening issues such as my wife's struggle to get through Wal Mart, which of my kids threw an ear-piercing temper tantrum or what kind of wine I should pick up to go with the evening's culinary delight. Or the fact that the fourth season of "24" is out on DVD, but our usual rental place neglected to stock one of the four-episode discs in the series.
Anyhoot, this whole surveillance thing got me thinking about newspaper practices in regard to tape-recording conversations with news sources, angry subscribers, happy subscribers or the occasionl run-of-the-mill fruitcake. It might be an apples-and-anvils comparison, but it does raise the issue of the ethics and laws regarding whether what you say on the telephone is secretly burned onto a cassette tape and stored away somewhere for future reference.
What many callers or sources might not realize is that it's perfectly legal in Texas for one party to tape-record another without the other party's knowledge or consent. When you call the police department, there's a good chance the conversation is recorded, and the cops, typically in a recording, tell you as much.
It is a general courteous practice, but not a requirement, for reporters to inform a source during a telephone interview that a tape recorder is being used.
However, as an editor and journalist with 20 years of experience, I often tell reporters that tape recorders should be a backup to notetaking. Using a tape recorder as an interview crutch often leads to the heartache of realizing the batteries - as well as the interview - are shot. Plus, reporters who rely on tape recorders instead of notes for interviews introduce a time-consuming step in the news-gathering process. When it's Deadline 6 p.m. and I want to go home, the last thing I want to see is a reporter hunched over a tape recorder and taking notes on an early morning interview with a source who has a spicy new nutria recipe for Thanksgiving.
I also lecture reporters on the art of developing some system of shorthand to quickly take notes. The most simple means I know is to develop symbols for oft-used words, such as teachers (T), people (P), city council (CC), and (a), could (cld), would (wld) and the (t). I call my note-taking system "slophand," whose primary feature is vowel elimination. It's almost impossible for anyone else to read, but I can go back in a notebook from 15 years ago and read every word of my notes.
I abandoned tape-recorder usage very early in my career, and I instruct my reporters to do the same.
Nevertheless, there are times when a tape recorder is essential, such as for backup when a journalist is part of a reporter pool interviewing a big-shot source, such as the president or governor. That way, a reporter doesn't risk the embarrassment of having a quote that differs from what everybody else writes - or puts on television or radio.
Getting back to telephone conversations, I think it shows courtesy when a reporter tells a source that an interview is being recorded. The source shouldn't mind or feel uneasy, seeing as a skilled note-taker is going to get it down on paper anyway.
According to this web site - http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm#State%20Laws%20(Table) - Texas is among 38 states that require the consent of only one party for tape recording. The other states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The District of Columbia also allows it.
Twelve states require all-party consent: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
There are all kinds of interesting facts in the aforementioned web site about states' recording laws. Their inconsistencies underscore this issue's various slippery slopes.
Of course, when it comes to busting crooks and terrorists, it is a whole new ballgame of conversary, pitting privacy and civil rights vs. public safety and the need for law enforcement to do its job.
It'll be interesting to see whether the federal surveillance issue simply simmers and goes away or boils over onto a more scandalous or perhaps even criminal burner.
It's nice to know that the people whom we elect to make these decisions, or appoint those who make them, eventually have to answer to the American public for their actions.