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 3rd 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
James Owens 