Ethical Considerations for Journalists – Using Disturbing Images.

This essay will examine the ethical considerations that journalists should weigh up when portraying potentially disturbing events, both in newspapers and on television. By looking at how decisions to publish or distribute disturbing material are made, we will highlight that there is no real consensus, among professionals and academics, about where to draw the line in the ethical sand. Also to be explored will be the philosophical theories which have added to the ethical debate and how they have helped shape the codes of ethics that journalists and editors can refer to when faced with difficult ethical decisions. Furthermore, we will be looking at specific examples from famous news stories that required careful ethical consideration about the potential consequences before broadcasting or publishing images of a sensitive nature. In some cases, journalists and editors have “flinched” when deciding whether or not to publish such images but others have remained stoic in the face of criticism, some for more benevolent reasons than others.

In Richard Keeble’s Ethics for Journalists, he explains that ‘the concept of media ethics is conceived to be an oxymoron. Sadly many segments of the modern media are stripped of almost all ethical concerns.’[1] Keeble puts this down to the competition for ratings and the need to sell papers and advertising space. In Controversies in Media Ethics, John C Merrill argues that there are two stances (professional and humanistic) that are taken when faced with ethical considerations. The professional stance is that ‘reporters who are dedicated to the people’s right to know, who feel an ethical obligation to let them know. They might do so without worrying about consequences…The humanistic stance is more relativistic or consequence motivated.’[2] Finding a point in the middle of these two stances appears to be the best approach according to Christopher Hansen, in Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, who states that a journalists imperative ‘is not to kill that disturbing story or photo but to present it in a way that minimizes pain without holding back what the public needs to know.’[3]

Your own moral compass on what is ethical and what is not can be complimented by a set of guidelines. The society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) offer these guidelines and codes but they do not deal directly with disturbing or graphic images. The SPJ comes closest in section two – minimizing harm – by stating ‘show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage – Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief – Show good taste, avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.’[4] The above is open to interpretation meaning that editors and journalists can easily push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Additionally, IPSO’s clause five – intrusion into grief or shock – states, ‘in cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.’[5] Bonnie Brennen, also writing in Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, claims that ‘ethics codes in general are controversial among professionals and scholars. Some maintain that ethics codes are nothing more than generalized aspirations – too vague to be of any use when specific decisions must be made.’[6] The guidelines of which Brennen speaks of are there to help journalists and editors when making decisions.

If the codes of ethics do not go far enough then there are certain philosophical theories which have added to the ethical discussion. Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that people should ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’[7] The minimizing harm section of the SPJ codes has Kantian tones, stating ‘ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.’[8] In Making Hard Choices in Journalism Ethics, David E. Boeyink and Sandra L. Borden state further that ‘Kant’s general defence of universal ethical principles – and, more specifically, the duty to respect all persons – is an important contribution to the way we think about ethics today.’[9]

A further philosophical theory which has been used in ethical discussions is Aristotle’s Golden Mean. As Gordon et al explains, ‘virtue is a state of character with choices of a moderate nature, a kind of balance determined by a rational person possessing practical wisdom. This Golden Mean is midpoint between two vices, one excessive and the other defective.’[10] However, Patterson and Wilkins claim that ‘the middle ground (or mean) of a virtue is not a single point on a line that is the same for every individual.’[11] It is for this very reason that codes only serve as an arbitrary guideline. There are those that would go further than what the codes suggest and those that would ignore them completely. The last philosophical theory to be looked at today is utilitarianism, popularised by Jeremy Bentham and later John Stuart Mill. Its central tenet states, ‘the consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical.’[12] This covers the greater good argument, a justification used many times by editors and journalists when called to defend their decisions. If the story, photograph or video does more good than harm, then it is ethically sound to publish. If we use these three theories as a guide, they seem to become more encompassing than the SPJ and IPSO codes. Aristotle focuses on the actor, Kant on the action and mill on the outcome or consequence.

When discussing the codes of SPJ and IPSO, Boeyink and Borden claim that ‘these principles are in constant tension as journalists endeavour to perform good work – in both the technical and moral sense. It’s precisely because these principles conflict so often that merely appealing to the code is not sufficient for solving the moral mysteries that bedevil even the best journalist.’[13] This was certainly the case when a BBC panel met to discuss the use of disturbing images in news and to debate the ethical principles behind these decisions. A group of twelve subjects were shown news footage of a recent Spanish train crash which killed seventy-nine people. (See below for ABC’s coverage of the crash) BBC director of global news, Peter Horrocks, speaking of the groups reaction stated, ‘on the whole, the feeling amongst the group was that disturbing footage should be included even if it makes for uncomfortable viewing (one of the group stated) it distressed me…but it had to be shown.’[14] When it came to airing the video of the crash, it was up to BBC news channel editor, Simon Waldman, to make the call over how much to show. ‘He opted to cut out the shot before the train hit the camera that was filming it…the visceral reaction he felt when he first saw the complete shot, together with the context at the time – when it was still not clear how many people had died in the crash – made him decide on the early out point.’[15] This opinion put him at odds with his fellow panel members who would have shown the footage in its entirety. Waldman’s decision seems to be based on there being no need for the public to see the culmination of the crash, to take it to its end point, or terminus, would be too final. Intentionally or not, there is evidence of Aristotle’s Golden Mean being applied here. Waldman appears to have been searching for the middle point between two extremes.

Similarly, Jennifer Faull of The Drum comments that ‘it is always a question of news and taste and balance, and you don’t want to hide the horror of what had happened but you don’t want family members to see pictures of bodies all over the internet before they have been told by authorities.’[16] Faull’s article focuses on the publication of photos of the crash victims of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17. Looking at the reaction of professional journalists, Joan Smith of Hacked Off is quoted as saying ‘I was pleased to see journalists warning against publishing such photos on social media, underlying the importance of training in ethics of journalism.’[17]

The potential consequence of using images or videos is that it could cause upset to the public. These negative consequences would have to be weighed up with any potential positives. To highlight this, an example from The Boston Herald in 1975 can be used. Photographer Stanley Forman was called to what he thought would be a routine rescue of people from a burning building but, as the fire service were getting a ladder up to the fire escape; Forman heard the shrieking sound of bending metal. The fire escape had given way and Forman managed to snap four quick photographs, one of which pictures a nineteen year old woman falling head first with a two year old girl just above her. The nineteen year old broke the fall of the toddler, the latter survived the fall but the former died of her injuries. The Boston Herald decided to run with the picture (see below) on the front page, and ‘within 24 hours, action was taken in Boston to improve the inspection and maintenance of all existing fire escapes in the city. Fire-safety groups around the country used the photos to promote similar efforts in other cities.’[18] This type of justification for using the image is in line with Mill’s Utility Principle, which states an act’s rightness is determined by its contribution to a desirable end. Adding context to an image allows you to explain why it is important that the image has been published. Michael L. Carlback argues that ‘in this informational mix, picture content matters less than the manner in which the picture is used.’[19]

Image Credit: Stanley Forman/Boston Herald American

When reading articles or watching news stories regarding sensitive topics, such as victims of war, terrorism, famine or domestic violence, the more graphic images tend to be diluted down to an acceptable level. However, Thomas H. Wheeler states in Photofiction or Phototruth?, ‘across the spectrum of discussion the one constant is a conviction that journalistic photos must reflect reality.’[20] It is this reality which is likely to cause offence and something which editors and journalists must not flinch from, instead they have the power to decide how much reality the public can manage. This conclusion can be perfectly summed up by the image, portrayed by the media and military alike, of the First Gulf War. Philip M. Taylor comments that ‘it was estimated by some people that as many as 25,000 Iraqis may have died in the ground wars final phase, where were the corpses?’[21] Nonetheless, Jessica M. Fishman, in Image Ethics in the Digital Age, highlights the concern expressed by citizens over the publication of death photographs arguing that ‘they are exploitative…choices to publish photos of death spring from an unethical, profit-driven motive aimed at selling more editions of the news.’[22] This concern does not explain fully the decision not to publish images of death during the Gulf War as Taylor highlights above. A further example to dismiss this claim comes from an article written by Torie Rose DeGhett titled “The War Photo No One Would Publish” which comments that ‘on February 28, 1991, Kenneth Jarecke stood in front of the charred man, parked amid the carbonized bodies of his fellow soldiers, and photographed him (see below)…the image and its anonymous subject might have come to symbolize the Gulf War. Instead, it went unpublished in the United States, not because of military obstruction but because of editorial choices.’[23] This editorial decision seems in keeping with a later Fishman comment regarding images of death in the news, ‘I discovered in conducting a systematic analysis of the past twenty years of American newspaper coverage that news photographs rarely reveal corpses.’[24] This points to the public being shielded from the worst horrors, not only of war and conflict but, of violence in general.

Courtesy of The Atlantic.com

In conclusion, journalists and editors are required to weigh up the potential aftermath before deciding to publish disturbing images. If there are more positive consequences than negative, then there should be no real headache. However, the parameters of taste and decency are not well defined meaning that there are disagreements among journalists and academics about the very definition of “ethicalness”. The ethical considerations that should be considered stem from the need to minimize harm to the public, what is in the public interest, the value that disturbing images add to the story; and whether or not anything will change as a result, as per the Forman example. Another conclusion to be drawn is that there are no uniform rules, and journalists and editors must rely upon their own moral compass. This leads to a difference of opinion amongst journalists as they interpret the codes of the SPJ and IPSO differently.

---

Bibliography

[1] Richard Keeble, Ethics for Journalists (Routledge, London, 2001) p. 5

[2] A. David Gordon, John Michael Kittross, John C. Merrill, William Babcock, and Michael Dorsher, Controversies in Media Ethics 3^rd edition (Routledge, New York, 2011) p. 14

[3] Christopher Hansen, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases Chapter 2, Informing the Public Must Come First, (eds), Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) p. 38

[4] https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp (accessed 01/04/2015)

[5] https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html (accessed 01/04/2015)

[6] Bonnie Brennen, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases Chapter 4, Case 4-C, Conflicted Interests, Contested Terrain, Journalism Ethics then and now, (eds), Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) p. 111

[7] David E. Boeyink and Sandra L. Borden, Making hard choices in journalism (Routledge, New York, 2010) p. 33

[8] https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp (accessed 01/04/2015)

[9] David E. Boeyink and Sandra L. Borden, Making hard choices in journalism p. 33

[10] A. David Gordon et al, Controversies in Media Ethics p. 15

[11] Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, (eds), Media Ethics: Issues and Cases p. 8

[12] Ibid, p. 10

[13] David E. Boeyink and Sandra L. Borden, Making hard choices in journalism p. 4

[14] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/249f0291-8675-32c3-b7cd-8cc99c7557de (accessed 28/03/2015)

[15] Ibid

[16] http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/07/18/graphic-images-mh17-crash-highlighted-underlying-importance-ethics-journalism (accessed 29/03/2015)

[17] Ibid

[18] Philip Patterson, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases Chapter 4, Case 4-D, One Person’s Tragedy, Another Person’s Prize, (eds), Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) p. 114

[19] Thomas H. Wheeler, Photofiction or phototruth? Ethics and Media Imagery in the Digital Age (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey, 2002) p. 102

[20] Ibid, p. 127

[21] Philip M. Taylor, The War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War, (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1992) p. 258

[22] Jessica M. Fishman, Image Ethics in the Digital Age Chapter 3 News Norms and Emotions (eds), Larry Gross, John Stuart Katz and Jay Ruby (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2003) p. 53

[23] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ (accessed 30/04/2015)

[24] Jessica M. Fishman, Image Ethics in the Digital Age Chapter 3 News Norms and Emotions p. 54

The Television Licence – Do You Need One?

To some, the BBC provides a wonderful range of quality television, radio and online content. Indeed many are happy to pay for their TV licence as it funds this long standing institution. The current licence fee is £145.50 a year and goes towards the cost of programming and the high salaried TV stars that light up our living rooms. You can pay for your licence upfront in one no fuss, no hassle fee, or if you choose, you can spread the cost by paying in monthly instalments. The BBC, a private company, employs another private company in the form the TV Licensing who, on the BBC’s behalf, arrange for collection of payment and visit unlicensed addresses to make sure that the “current occupier” is obeying the law.

Do you need a TV licence? The TV Licensing Company state that “You need to be covered by a valid TV licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone, or DVD/video recorder”. If you do not have a television capable of receiving a live broadcast, then you are not required to get a TV licence. However, simply informing TV Licensing of this is not enough. This private company will insist on entering your property to see for themselves. A point to be remembered is that you have no obligation to allow them access to your property, nor are you obliged to tell them your name or whether or not your are the occupier of the property. The company then has three choices, they can either accept that you do not require a TV licence and leave you alone, continue to send you harassing letters with warnings and threats, or if that fails, they will apply to a judge to obtain a warrant to enter your premises to ascertain whether or not you require a TV licence. The third option is their last resort.

I spoke with a TV Licensing representative on their customer service helpline to ask what evidence would satisfy a judge that the occupier was watching or capable of receiving live television. I was advised that:

“They could obtain any evidence to send out a warrant so that’s information they have received from service providers, even by the signals if the signals have been checked or if someone has reported yourself”.

I asked if he meant the internet service provider:

“It could be from your television service provider.”

What if you do not have a television service provider? This question seemed to cause him some consternation and he advised that he would get the customer specialist unit to call me back to answer my questions but they never did. I was intrigued by his claim that television service providers give the TV Licensing company such sensitive information. I contacted Sky, BT and Virgin but thus far only Virgin have responded.

A Virgin Media Spokeswomen had this to say:

“We’ve looked into this and can confirm we do not share customer information with TV licensing authorities. Sometimes we may release information to public authorities but only to assist with an investigation or via a court order.”

It is entirely possible that the TV Licensing representative was mistaken so I will not hold what he said to be an actual practice of the TV Licensing, although I am still awaiting a response from BskyB and BT. In the meantime, I decided to contacted the TV Licensing press office to ask what evidence a judge requires to grant a warrant to enter a premises.

A TV Licensing spokesperson said:

“We only apply for a search warrant as a last resort and we state this on our website. Each application is considered scrupulously before it is submitted, and a warrant cannot be granted by the court unless there are reasonable grounds for the application.”

In addition to the official comment the spokesperson also advised that:

“TV Licensing apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a search warrant when there is reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the premises and entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced. We’re open about the fact we only apply for a search warrant as a last resort. We don’t give out specific examples of the type of evidence we might use to support a search warrant application, because this information might be useful to people looking to avoid paying the fee.”

Below is a cleverly edited video showing how the TV Licensing company work.

Evidence is likely to be found on the premises. Just remember that statement and remember that a TV Licensing agent has no authority to enter your premises. This means that by giving an agent no details, as to your identity, and refusing them access to your property, then they are unable to gather any evidence that they might present to a judge. I have asked for further clarification on what other evidence they might use, however, as you can see they are unwilling to let that information be known. I have, as a result of this response, made an FOI (Freedom of Information) request to ascertain exactly how many warrants the TV Licensing people apply for and how many are successful. Additionally, I have requested “what other evidence” might be used in order gain entry to your property. I will also be writing to the Sheriff officer for Glasgow to get their side of it, their processes, and how they evaluate the evidence presented by the TV Licensing company. I will keep you updated once I have received another response from my FOI request and I have spoken to the Sheriff Officer.

Peace and love fellow human.

Independence Referendum – Blanket Boycotts Are Not The Answer

Let us face the facts, the majority of the Scottish electorate, fifty-five percent, voted against Scotland becoming an independent country. That is the result and we can do nothing but accept it as fact. However, we do not need to forget it, or let go of the dream of one day being an independent nation. Based on nothing more than my conversations with no voters, the reasons for voting no includes, fears over economy, defence, currency, border control and bloody Doctor Who. Furthermore, the notion that voters were turned from voting yes by the image painted by politicians and the media that the SNP and its members as nasty, angry nationalists was put forward, while the same press ignored nationalistic sentiment from the no side. This helped create an environment in which fear was a massive factor in deciding which way to vote. As a by-product, anyone associated with the yes side were lumped together as a single frame of mind and ideal. The truth is, that the yes campaign transcended many different sections of society, with most sharing nothing in common with the SNP, other than their desire for constitutional change through Scottish independence.

The “vow”, not worth the paper it was printed in.

The scare stories, which were designed to frighten people to vote no, came from all angles. We had media reports telling us that the oil was running out, and that Scotland could not survive without the financial aid of Westminster. We were billed as subsidy junkies, looking for handouts from a benevolent master. “Please sir can I have some more”. However, as it looked like Scotland might vote for independence, up stepped the leaders of the UK to promise us less than what independence would deliver. The press played a massive part in project fear, giving us daily doses of doom and armageddon should we choose wrongly. Out of all the publications in the UK only The Sunday Herald supported a yes vote. Every other newspaper and media outlet refused to officially announce itself one way or the other, however, their leanings were obvious and punctuated by anti-independence announcements from businesses.

The big four supermarkets threatened to raise their prices if Scotland voted yes. How this could be seen as anything other than a bluff is beyond me. It would have been impossible for them to increase the costs of essentials without losing a large bulk of their customer base. Yes and no voters would have been driven off in their masses. A boycott of every single business that supported maintaining the union is simply impractical. However, boycotts do have their place and should be used where their impact will be felt the greatest. It would be hard for people, already struggling, to shop elsewhere, every penny counts. Believe it or not, these places offer the best value for money. It’s all well and good having principles, but if you can’t feed your family, or yourself then, what’s the point.

Threats to hike prices seemed to work for some voters.

Furthermore, it would also be difficult to hurt the media with any boycott. Print media’s circulation has dropped dramatically over the years due to the rise of smartphones and tablets. The biggest source of any newspaper’s wealth, in print or on the internet, is through advertising. Given this fact it would be hard to see how a boycott would affect income. Refusing to buy a particular publication will have less of an impact than previously as most people get their news online. I’m sure there will be those among you who like the feel of the paper between their fingers, but by and large this is not the case. RBS and Clydesdale were among the Scottish banks which threatened job cuts in the event of a yes vote. However, it would also be difficult to change bank accounts to a different provider considering most of us are living off of our overdraft and simply do not have the funds to close the account.

The businesses which would be most affected by any boycott are those that rely on a regular subscription fee, for example, Sky and Virgin Media both came out against independence, both have considerable reach, in terms of viewership, and both depend on regular subscription fees. It would be rather easy to cancel your subscription to these services and find an alternative supplier. You can get most TV programs on catch-up services and freeview is also available. Plus, boycotting Virgin should be the norm, given the amount of tax avoided via an immoral, yet legal loophole.

A private tax collecting company.

Another effective boycott could be done against the biggest offender of the independence referendum. The BBC licence fee brings in nearly £4 billion a year. This television tax helps pay over inflated wages to its stars and directors. I would strongly urge everyone reading this to cancel your subscription to this outdated form of tax on the poor. If a representative from TV Licensing appears at your door, remember that they are a private company and in no way affiliated with the law. Do not speak to them, you are not obliged to answer any questions, you do not have to give them any information and any information they do get will only help them to legally enter your premises to check if you have a television capable of receiving a live signal. Remember that laptops and smartphones also require a licence to watch live television. You do not need a licence to watch catch-up. The licence is completely unnecessary and can be legally avoided. If you would like to officially be free of harassment from this private company then you can follow the advice printed in The Telegraph on how to avoid the fee, which can be found by clicking here.

Peace and love fellow human.