journalism ethics and the va tech shootings
since i am a photojournalism student, obviously i care about ethics. if i didn't, i shouldn't be doing what i do. unfortunately, in the journalism profession, all it takes is one bad apple to make the rest look bad.
this is an interesting article about the ethics of covering such a devastating event as the virginia tech shootings. it asks the questions- does the press over cover an event to the point where we are numb to it? are journalists invasive in reporting tragedy?
"How far is too far? The gold standard for journalistic
insensitivity was established in the 1960s by an un-
named British TV reporter who was trawling for news
at a Congo airport. According to foreign correspondent
Edward Behr's 1978 memoir, the Brit walked through
the crowd of terrified Belgian colonials who were
evacuating, and shouted, 'Anyone here been raped
and speaks English?' "
i won't spoil the rest of the article for you. i think there is a very fine line when you are reporting between sensationalism and news. i tend to feel that if you are sensitive about who and what you are reporting, then you won't cross over any lines. obviously you have to have tact and respect in approaching a victim. sometimes you have to ask questions that may seem inappropriate in order to get the full story. you don't want to be the guy mentioned in the paragraph above. one point the article make is that if a tragedy such as the va tech shootings weren't over covered, then the public would feel they weren't getting enough information.
another thing that interests me, that was linked in the article, is the effect covering a tragedy has on journalists themselves. i haven't covered a tragedy, and to be honest don't look forward to the day i have to. as i mentioned, you have to be sensitive about what you are covering in order to cover it well. this means absorbing the emotions that surround the victims.
"Some researchers theorize that reporters and photo-
graphers are potential secondary victims of trauma
by the very function they perform.
'Their hearts are exposed even if they are looking
through a lens,' cautions Martin Cohen, a Florida
psychologist who has worked with journalists at the
Poynter Institute for Media Studies. `They are in-
jected with a poison, a certain kind of energy that
can affect them for a long time if they don't deal
with it. The mere exposure to trauma can be traumatic.''
apparently a lot of news services have counselors as an employee service. few journalists however will use the service thinking that it makes them cowards or unprofessional if they do. you're supposed to be stoic and face trauma with a stiff upper lip. or there is the pressure of the deadline, in which there isn't enough time to decompress and emote with someone.
i can only imagine the mood my boss is going to be in when he gets back from blacksburg. he's another person my heart goes out to in this tragedy.
this is an interesting article about the ethics of covering such a devastating event as the virginia tech shootings. it asks the questions- does the press over cover an event to the point where we are numb to it? are journalists invasive in reporting tragedy?
"How far is too far? The gold standard for journalistic
insensitivity was established in the 1960s by an un-
named British TV reporter who was trawling for news
at a Congo airport. According to foreign correspondent
Edward Behr's 1978 memoir, the Brit walked through
the crowd of terrified Belgian colonials who were
evacuating, and shouted, 'Anyone here been raped
and speaks English?' "
i won't spoil the rest of the article for you. i think there is a very fine line when you are reporting between sensationalism and news. i tend to feel that if you are sensitive about who and what you are reporting, then you won't cross over any lines. obviously you have to have tact and respect in approaching a victim. sometimes you have to ask questions that may seem inappropriate in order to get the full story. you don't want to be the guy mentioned in the paragraph above. one point the article make is that if a tragedy such as the va tech shootings weren't over covered, then the public would feel they weren't getting enough information.
another thing that interests me, that was linked in the article, is the effect covering a tragedy has on journalists themselves. i haven't covered a tragedy, and to be honest don't look forward to the day i have to. as i mentioned, you have to be sensitive about what you are covering in order to cover it well. this means absorbing the emotions that surround the victims.
"Some researchers theorize that reporters and photo-
graphers are potential secondary victims of trauma
by the very function they perform.
'Their hearts are exposed even if they are looking
through a lens,' cautions Martin Cohen, a Florida
psychologist who has worked with journalists at the
Poynter Institute for Media Studies. `They are in-
jected with a poison, a certain kind of energy that
can affect them for a long time if they don't deal
with it. The mere exposure to trauma can be traumatic.''
apparently a lot of news services have counselors as an employee service. few journalists however will use the service thinking that it makes them cowards or unprofessional if they do. you're supposed to be stoic and face trauma with a stiff upper lip. or there is the pressure of the deadline, in which there isn't enough time to decompress and emote with someone.
i can only imagine the mood my boss is going to be in when he gets back from blacksburg. he's another person my heart goes out to in this tragedy.
Labels: Ethics, Journalism