All Hidden Camera Programs Constitute Backbiting!

Introduction

Hujjat al-Islam Mohammad Ali Heidari, a seminary professor and expert in media jurisprudence, has focused his scholarly work in recent years on “Media from the Perspective of Religion and Islamic Law.” A faculty member at Meshkat Seminary, in this interview, he not only addresses the topic of individuals’ rights in media but also explores new obligations and prohibitions in this area through the lens of Shia jurisprudence.

Do Iranian Media Outlets Respect Individuals’ Rights as They Should?

Two key jurisprudential rulings related to people’s rights in media are haqq Allah (the right of God) and haqq al-nas (the right of people). The subject of media jurisprudence is relevant to all jurisprudential rulings concerning human interactions, which are primarily discussed in books on “prohibited vices” (mafāsid muharrama). These include topics such as lying, backbiting (gheibat), slander (buhtan, often referred to as false accusation in ethical texts), spying (tajassus), spreading immorality (ishā‘at al-fahshā), aiding in sin (i‘ānat ‘ala al-ithm), and revealing secrets (ifshā’ al-sirr). All these jurisprudential topics pertain to human interactions, specifically those involving the giving and receiving of messages. We must examine whether any message given or received falls under one of these jurisprudential categories. For example, does receiving a message constitute spying? Does it amount to listening to backbiting?

On the other hand, sometimes it is obligatory for media to convey a message. If it fails to do so, has it committed a prohibited act? For instance, in cases where enjoining good and forbidding evil (amr bil-ma‘rūf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar) or guiding the ignorant is obligatory, if the media does not engage, has it committed a prohibited act? Such issues fall within the domain of media jurisprudential rulings.

Under the jurisprudential topic of “exceptions to backbiting,” it is stated that if someone has been wronged and cannot reclaim their rights, they may expose the oppressor’s injustice. However, if the weight of their grievance exceeds the original injustice, this grievance itself becomes an additional injustice, and it is unclear whether the previous jurisprudential ruling still applies.

What is the Jurisprudential Status of Investigating and Exposing Crimes or Allegations in Media?

Let me begin with the concept of spying (tajassus). For example, journalistic activities aimed at uncovering weaknesses undoubtedly fall under the category of spying. One might argue that since the prohibition of spying conflicts with other interests, it is permissible. In reality, such an activity may not be prohibited due to this conflict of interests. Here, we must weigh whether the benefit of exposure outweighs the harm of spying, applying the principle of prioritizing the more important (ahamm wa muhimm).

Spying is not limited to investigating an individual’s private affairs. All activities under the umbrella of anthropology, such as exploring the ignorant customs or flaws of a group or community, fall under the category of spying. If we aim to consider the benefit of gaining knowledge, we must recognize that this involves a conflict of interests, and we need to weigh the benefits against the harms.

So far, the jurisprudential discussion has not been overly complex—it is quite clear. The complexity arises here: the core concept of spying, which is deemed prohibited in our jurisprudence, involves searching into people’s hidden affairs that constitute their flaws. For instance, if someone has poor moral traits, and I search, covertly or overtly, to uncover their hidden flaws, this clearly falls under spying, and no one disputes this. However, if I seek to uncover someone’s hidden virtues—for example, a mystic who never reveals their good deeds—and in the process, I happen to uncover some flaws, does this still constitute spying? It is said that it does not, as I did not intend to uncover flaws. My aim was to discover virtues, and any flaws uncovered were incidental.

Does News Gathering Also Fall Under Spying?

For news gathering, I use the term “in-depth interview” (musāhiba ‘amīq). For example, I obtain permission to conduct an interview with you using professional, well-established interviewing techniques. These techniques, which underpin many scientific studies, allow me to penetrate the inner dimensions of your personality, while you are unaware of the techniques being used. You respond to specific questions, but through this method, I delve into the depths of your being. Do I have the right to do this? Typically, it is said that such an interview requires permission. But even with permission, is it truly permissible to delve into someone’s innermost self? No, such permission is not granted. Secondly, no one can authorize a complete examination of their affairs or allow all their flaws to be uncovered. No human is permitted to put their reputation up for auction. Thus, the concept of spying applies here as well.

Another example of jurisprudential issues in news gathering is media activities during elections. For instance, I am tasked with covering the news of a candidate’s campaign headquarters. Do I have the right to infiltrate their private affairs for the sake of gathering news? Suppose the headquarters has a pantry—do I truly have the right to enter it like a spy for news purposes? One might argue that there is a potential security or cultural risk, in which case the matter must be weighed. But does being a journalist grant me the right to infiltrate every domain? There is no such jurisprudential concept that gives journalists such broad authority. One of the concepts that restricts journalists is spying. A journalist does not have the right to enter every private domain for news gathering. I have seen this often—for example, even on some news websites run by pious and religious individuals, they were denied entry into certain areas, yet they used deceptive tactics to gain access. Later, they protested when they faced consequences for entering unlawfully.

What About News Broadcasting? What is the Scope of News Coverage and Broadcasting?

The primary concept here is exposing an individual’s flaws, which falls under backbiting (gheibat). This applies particularly to matters that cause distress or aversion to the individual. There is no jurisprudential defense for this. Imam Khomeini discussed this extensively in Makāsib Muharrama, as have the late Ayatollah Khoei and other jurists. Uncovering what God has concealed—exposing flaws that God has hidden—whether in my statements, news reports, documentaries I produce and broadcast, or even in films or fictional literature, constitutes backbiting. This applies not only to individuals but also to groups. For example, if I visit a city and observe an unethical trait, and then publicize it, this too constitutes backbiting. So far, this is not a novel jurisprudential issue and is clear to us. Yet, consider how prevalent this clear issue is in media.

All hidden camera programs fall under this category of backbiting! Setting up a hidden camera to capture and broadcast behavior witnessed by only a few people constitutes backbiting. The act of using a hidden camera for news gathering is spying, but broadcasting it is backbiting. The presentation of such news or footage is backbiting. We often see documentaries on television, such as social documentaries, where an individual has committed an unethical act, for example, harassing others’ family members. The crew, with cameras rolling, approaches the person and asks, “Sir, why did you do this?” Initially, the individual defends themselves but later expresses deep remorse and regret because the behavior was indefensible. While their face may be blurred, their family, friends, neighbors, or acquaintances can still recognize them by their voice, demeanor, or characteristics, making it abundantly clear that this constitutes backbiting.

This issue has been explicitly addressed in traditional jurisprudential texts, noting that backbiting can even occur through gestures. For example, a woman with a short stature visited the Prophet, and after she left, one of his wives gestured with her hand to indicate her short height. The Prophet said, “You have backbitten her.” This narration establishes that backbiting is not limited to verbal statements. For instance, if I archive a photo to broadcast it later in the media, this too is backbiting.

Media Outlets Define Goals and Missions for Themselves. How Does This Relate to Raising Awareness and Responsibility Toward Public Opinion?

Thus, this ruling does not categorically apply to all injustices. Sometimes, an individual, due to their fame, is themselves a media platform. If such a person claims they have no platform or special resources, this is not acceptable. No, you yourself are a media platform. If you express a grievance, the weight of your grievance may exceed the injustice done to you. In media-specific cases, these considerations must be taken into account.

In political matters, exposing flaws to select the most qualified candidate (aslah) involves a conflict of interests, where such exposure may be obligatory. However, we must note that this still falls under backbiting, which is prohibited. Due to the conflict of interests and the greater benefit, it may take precedence over the prohibition of backbiting. Thus, each case must be evaluated to determine whether the benefit outweighs the prohibition.

What About News Framing? Is the Way News is Presented Important?

The framing of a news text can give it a different connotation. For example, suppose I report a news statement, and because it follows a previous statement, it collectively conveys a different impression to the audience. Individually, each statement is accurate, but their arrangement together creates a false impression, often referred to as sensationalism (siyāh-namāyī). Sensationalism takes various forms, including the arrangement of sentences, the combination of text and images, or narration and footage—all falling under framing.

Another aspect of framing is when a question is posed to someone, and they respond with a truthful statement, but both they and others know that in this context, the statement carries a different connotation, leading the audience to interpret it differently. The speaker is aware of this. This too is framing. Broadcasting news at a specific time, knowing that it will carry a different connotation in that context, also falls under the rule of framing.

Source: Mashreq News.