As I have written before, I wonder how much room there really is in journalism for ethics.

This story from last night’s KGAN report on a local film screening is further evidence that, when it’s necessary, we cast journalistic ethics out the window.Yesterday, more than 630 people gathered to view the film, “Black American Gothic,” which is about issues of Iowa City’s Southeast Side, a space depicted in the public and the media as dangerous. Here, the Southeast Side, is the “bad side of town.”

I helped organize this screening, part of the Landlocked Film Festival, and discussion groups that occurred after the screening. About 75 (I initially thought it was more, but changed it here, because…) people took part in these discussions throughout the downtown. They wanted to talk about race, class, crime, and the film itself.

With a news reporter from the local FOX and CBS affiliate, I walked the filmmaker to as many of the discussion groups as we could get to. Each time, I introduced her and asked if anyone felt uncomfortable with a reporter “getting b-roll” from the discussion group. If so, I would keep the cameras out.

In the two discussion groups we entered, I saw from several people that they were not interested in having their session recorded.

The journalists and I had made an agreement that if anyone in the discussion did not want to be videotaped, that they would not be. But, we agreed that participants who wanted to talk to the reporter could come outside the room and do a one-on-one interview.

After being rejected from the first and second discussion group, the reporter said the videographer “knew what to do” to get b-roll, images, or sounds for their packaged.

As a former reporter myself, I assumed that this was journalist lingo for “get what you can get in any way possible.” I, too, have snuck in places I was not supposed to be. And, as a reporter, I have likely lied to get into where I need to go.

But, we had made an agreement. And, I thought that the journalists would respect that.

These groups were to be safe spaces to talk, I told him and the participants. Many of the people in these groups already experience surveillance from police, media, and the rest of the community because of where they live, what they do, or because of their skin color.

Yet, the journalistic drive must have taken over, because when I watched the streaming report from KGAN this morning, I saw shots of a group that expressly prohibited their images from being used.

Apparently, the videographer “shot from the hip” through a window or doorway to get shots of people talking. You can see this at about 58 seconds into the story.

The reporter had a standup shot in the Southeast Side. He had images of the crowd in Englert Theatre, those who were there to see the film. He had interviews with the director and with a person who appeared in the documentary. And, he got to talk with someone who was in one of the discussion groups.

But instead of empowering discussion participants to make their own choices about whether to be involved in a TV report, or to make their choices about to be videotaped at all, the reporter delegitimized and marginalized these people.

They were no longer participants. They were subjects.

Now, having worked in media for many years, I know the need to have images and personal stories, faces, and movement to make a narrative work. And I am so glad that someone from the press attended the event. In fact, it was a pretty good story. (That said, it was the only story about this film and the discussion groups that appeared in the press this morning.)

I also recognize that these discussion groups occurred in public spaces — university classrooms, city hall, the public library.

But at what point does it become OK for journalists to break their word? Is every story worth that? How and when do we decide to break journalistic ethics? When do we say agreements don’t matter? When do we decide that people will be recorded even if they say they don’t want it?

This photo of an injured firefighter from the Chicago Tribune over the weekend likely wasn’t OK’d by the firefighter.

Even though it seems to be a personal moment, one of fear and danger, the photographer likely isn’t expected to seek permission to publish this image. It was taken of a public figure (a firefighter) at a public scene in public space.

This photo of a man injured during fighting in Libya from the Los Angeles Times also didn’t likely need any permissions. It was taken in a time of crisis, a public event, in a public space.

Now, there may be “ethical” concerns to both of these photographs, but we don’t know the context, the back-stories to how the images were taken.

I do know, however, the back-story to how images were not supposed to be taken of groups during discussions following “Black American Gothic.”

So the final questions are these: Did any journalistic ethics get broken by the KGAN reporter? Who decides either way? Does each story demand the same level of aggressive reporting that we may see in war, times of crisis? Even if the people in question are not public officials? Even if the event occurred in semi-public space? Even if an agreement was made about when reporters could have access?

What do you think?