Minimizing Harm in the Face of Tragedy

Haley Dake
hd883312@ohio.edu

There is no question that journalists face a balancing act when it comes to releasing breaking news stories in a timely fashion and minimizing harm to the people involved in those stories. The SPJ Code of Ethics states that in order for journalism to be considered ethical it must "treat sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect." Time and time again, however, we have seen journalists ignore this crucial guideline.

The Problem 
We live in a time where news is reported rapidly, and the majority of the news that gets released online is video or picture from the scene of the story. This intense desire for immediate and mass coverage is what leads us to have mistakes and controversy in reporting, a prime example of this being the issue that arose with the  Newtown shooting coverage.

Reporters not only get the most information, but they want to get their hands on every shocking or personal detail surrounding the story. If you can't win in the race against the clock, the next best thing is to have information no one else has. There is nothing wrong with wanting to report in the most accurate way possible, but where do we draw the line on how much information is too much?  Check out this story--did ABC cross the line?

It is easy to say that forcing an interview on a patient under the influence of medication, while still in a hospital bed is radically unethical, and crossing the line, but this journalist didn't seem to think so. We are engrossed in the idea of being the first one to have the best, most shocking story, and this is what has created the insensitive and vicious reputation that goes along with being a journalist today.

Drawing the Line
When covering stories that deal with tragedy or loss, it is vital that as journalists we stay sensitive to the public and those involved. An important part of minimizing harm is having a level of compassion towards the victims and families. They should have control of the amount of privacy they give up. Instead of trying to dig deep into their personal experience while they're in a period of mourning, we should be allowing them to open up as much or as little as they're comfortable with.

Regardless of what information you are able to pry from a family member or victim of a crime, disaster, or death, the crime, disaster, or death still happened. The story is still there, and it's just as newsworthy. The first hand account and personal thoughts from someone involved will always be relevant in a story of a tragedy, but there is a time a place for those accounts and experiences come out.

Picture if You Will...
Imagine if there was a law, that required news organizations and reporters to have zero contact with victims or direct family members of victims for a 7 day period. Extended family could speak out and talk on behalf of the family, but to speak to the family you they would have to approach you and give legal written consent.

The story would still get out and you could still acquire quotes and accounts from witnesses and police or government officials. All other ethical values would be upheld, and there would be a serious decrease in the amount of harm produced in covering these kind of stories. Maybe instead of a law, a change in attitude and a greater sense of compassion could do the trick.