Nov. 20, 2010
In 2009, 16-year-old honor student Derrion Albert was beaten to death two blocks from his high school in one of Chicago’s roughest neighborhoods. Albert appeared to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time and gotten caught in between two fighting rival gangs. The next day, a reporter from Chicago’s WFLD-TV was approached by an individual who claimed to have captured video footage of Albert’s gruesome death. The armature videographer wanted to sell the station his tape and demanded cash. The man claimed that he had captured the brawl on his way to pick up his sister from school, but WFLD-TV staff was troubled by the fact that the man had chosen to film Albert being attacked instead of calling the police.
After reviewing the footage, reporters and staff determined that the disturbing video was in fact real. They also determined that the videographer appeared to be telling the truth about happening upon the fight on his way to pick up his sister. The video, shot at times from angles very close to the action, clearly captured the faces of Albert’s attackers as they beat him over the head with lumber, kicked and punched him to death. Everyone involved in the street brawl appeared to be a juvenile and many were still wearing school uniforms.
The TV station decided to pay the videographer $250 for the video, the standard fee they pay all amateur and professional photographers and videographers. The station then alerted the police about the tape and provided them with a copy. Police urged the station not to use the video or even mention that it existed for fear that Albert’s attackers might flee if they knew the video could possible identify them.
WFLD-TV complied with the police for 24 hours and then aired an edited, but still extremely graphic, version of the video on its nightly newscast. The station blurred out Albert’s figure in the last section of the video where he has fallen to the ground and is being kicked and punched by his attackers, but most of the video was left untouched. Because of the horrific nature of the crime (and an OK from legal council), the station decided not to blur the faces of Albert’s attackers despite them being juveniles.
The next day police arrested and charge all four of the teens responsible for Albert’s death.
Already knowing that there was a happy ending to the story makes this case harder to examine without bias in ethical terms, but it does not make any less complicated the ethical issues that reporters at WFLD-TV had to grapple with in their decision to air or not to air, and if they air, how and when to air or otherwise release the video. To explore these issues one must examine the nature of the video and both the potential harm and the potential good that could come from releasing it to the public.
For one, law enforcement had asked the station not to release or even mention the video because it could possible hinder the police’s investigation and apprehension of suspects. The station had to decide for what amount of time they would sit on the video before releasing it. WFLD-TV complied with the police’s request for a mere 24 hours.
At this point none of the suspects in Albert’s murder had been apprehended or even fully and positively identified. The suspects could have easily fled as the police had warned, or worse, seeing the video and realizing that they could be identified by it, the suspects could have planned to ambush the police or take hostages out of desperation.
As a network broadcast station, WFLD-TV also had to decide how a video of such a tacitly violent and gruesome nature would or could be used in a nightly newscast. The station had to determine to what extent they would edit the video without taking away from its quality and truth.
The video illustrated the reality of gang violence that took place daily in the streets of southern Chicago’s neighborhoods and could be invaluable as a means to open the public’s eyes to such. At the same time, children and families, not to mention some of Albert’s friends and family, could certainly watch the newscast and witnessing as Carol Fowler, WFLD-TV’s vice president and news director called it, the true documenting of a killing, could cause people like these severe emotional anguish and direst. Even if the station warned viewers that it was about to show a graphic video, there would be no way to make sure that young children or others who shouldn’t or didn’t want to watch the video, did not see it.
By showing an edited version of the video on its nightly newscast, WFLD-TV gave society an unapologetic view of the reality of gang violence. The station forced the citizens of Chicago and the nation to look at just how harrowing and dangerous gang violence had made simply walking to or from school for teens in Albert’s south Chicago neighborhood.
The video showed a picture of carnage and violence that few who live outside of such neighborhoods ever get to see. Airing the video might push people towards demanding the social change needed to help plighted, impoverished and gang violence stricken neighborhoods in south Chicago like Albert’s.
This is all well and good, but is possibly bringing about social change worth extorting the final moments of a young man’s life? Who were the reporters to decide that Albert was to be a martyr, known and remembered mainly for his violent end?
These issues were only compounded by the fact that everyone in the video was a minor. Although legal council had given the station the OK to air the video without blurring out the faces of any of the teens, would doing so really be considered ethical? Revealing the faces of Albert’s attackers and the other teens in the video could have helped witnesses and others come forward and help to identify the attackers, but police already had the video and already knew that all of the suspects had attended Albert’s same high school so identification was not expressly difficult without the public’s help.
So was WFLD-TV’s decision to air the graphic video really ethical or reckless and vulgar? Can one justify airing a patently violent video of a young man, a private citizen, being beaten to death if such a video might shed light on the reality and brutality of gang violence in Chicago’s streets?
To answer this question, we will first look at what the ethics code for the Radio Television Digital News Association can offer in the way of guidelines.
The RTDNA states that a journalist must hold the public’s trust above all else. That they must, “Understand that any commitment other than service to the public undermines trust and credibility,” and, “Recognize that service in the public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity of the community and guard against oversimplification of issues or events.”
It could be said that by airing the video WFLD-TV was acting in the interest of the public by showing them the reality and brutality of gang violence in Chicago’s streets. This also goes along with the code’s second stipulation that journalists should seek the truth. By leaving the video largely unedited aside from blurring its most graphic moments, the station also acted in accordance with another part of the truth clause by not distorting the video in a way that could “obscure the importance of events.”
The third section of the code on fairness states that journalists should, “Treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity, showing particular compassion to victims of crime or tragedy.” The stations decision to air the video could be seen as a violation of this section of the code as everyone involved in the incident was a minor. The clause goes on to state, “Exercise special care when children are involved in a story and give children greater privacy protection than adults.” Some would argue that airing the video contradicted this idea that journalists should be compassionate of victims of crime or tragedy. Only two days after Albert’s murder, his loved ones were certainly still reeling in grief; seeing their loved one’s murder aired on TV could have added immensely to their suffering.
The fourth clause of the code deals with integrity and states that journalists should not, “Pay news sources who have a vested interest in a story.” WFLD-TV paid the amateur videographer who seemed more interested in making a profit from the video than helping to apprehend Albert’s attackers as the man took the video to the media instead of the police.
The code also has a section on independence that states journalists should, “Determine news content solely through editorial judgment and not as the result of outside influence.” The station heeded the police’s request to withhold the video, but made the decision to air it 24 hours later. “Editorial judgment” is a vague statement to say the least, so the stations decision to air the video does not seem to be in conflict with this section of the code.
To further dissect this case, one must now move past looking at RTND’s code of ethics and explore who wins and who loses in order to answer the questions that the code does not.
The stakeholders in this case are:
1. The officials trying to apprehend Albert’s attackers– Airing the video could interfere with law enforcements efforts to make quick arrests of the people responsible for Albert’s death. Releasing the video could also tip the suspects off that police are looking for them, causing them to flee or giving them ample time to plan an ambush of the police. On the other hand, by showing the video and making known the faces of Albert’s attackers, the public could provide law enforcement with information about the suspect’s whereabouts.
2. Albert’s friends and family– It is uncertain whether or not the TV station contacted Albert’s family before airing the video. Only a mere two days after Albert’s murder his friends and family could have certainly endured great emotional direst from having a video of their loved one’s death splashed across the media. However, if the video helps to apprehend Albert’s attackers, the family might find peace of mind that their loved one’s murders were brought to justice. Moreover, if the senseless crimes committed against Albert could bring about a positive change by moving officials, lawmakers or citizens to push for change, then Albert’s family too might find peace in that something good arose from their loved one’s death.
3. Society– Watching Albert’s brutal death might surely offend and emotionally disturb many, but witnessing the reality of gang violence and the price that many innocent victims pay because of it might help members of society to be more aware of their own reality and the need for social change. Citizens might also be more apt at protecting themselves if they know what Albert’s attackers look like. Furthermore, Albert’s gruesome death and the vivid video footage of it, might save the lives of thousands of other victims like him if society takes action to prevent the issues that lead to gang violence.
4. People in Albert’s neighborhood and high school– Along with Albert’s friends and family the video could very well traumatize some of these people, but chances are the violence portrayed in the footage is not out of the ordinary for the people in Albert’s south Chicago community. Airing the footage would bring to light the harrowing circumstances that the people in this community must face on a day-to-day basis.
5. Albert- Although he is dead, does this high school honor student really disserve to be most remembered for his brutal demise? Airing the video, however, might be able to bring about something positive from his death and save the lives of others.
6. WFLD-TV– The situation ended well for the TV station because they provided society a graphic view of gang related violence and Albert’s attackers were successfully apprehended, but the situation could have just as easily ended quite badly. If Albert’s attackers had fled, ambushed police, or taken hostages because they knew that police were on to them, WFLD-TV could have come out the enemy instead of the hero.
7. The People in the Video– Only four people out of tens of others in the video were responsible for Albert’s death. With people running in a thousand different directions, it is impossible to tell who is a “gangster” and who is just an innocent passerby. It could be said that by not blurring the faces of any of the juveniles in the video, people like Albert who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time could have been discriminated against and unjustly classified as gang members since the station claimed that the video captured two rival gangs fighting in the street.
So what is all this worth? Where did WFLD-TV reporters place their values?
WFLD-TV privileged the value of truth over privacy in its decision to air a video of a private citizen’s brutal death on television. Station officials also did so in deciding to only lightly edit the video, leaving the faces of Albert’s attackers and other people on the scene not blurred. Leaving the video mostly intact and unedited also allowed the reality of the situation to remain integral.
WFLD-TV officials believed that the light the video could shed on the gruesome reality of gang violence was worth the possibility of inflicting emotional pain on Albert’s friends and family and other vulnerable groups. They believed that if the citizens of Chicago and the nation could see how truly terrifying gang violence was and could see firsthand the innocents that often had to pay the price because of it then society might be moved to do something about it.
WFLD-TV also decided that 24 hours was long enough to hold the video as to not interfere with the police’s effort to apprehend the suspects. This decision privileged the values of timeliness, relevance and independence over the police’s request to withhold the video. Although the suspects had not yet been apprehended, the station chose to air the video 24 hours after they received it so that Albert’s death would still be fresh on the mind of Chicagoans, giving the video that much more impact.
The station could have interfered with the police’s efforts, but one day after getting the video and two days after Albert’s attack, the police should have been well on their way to arresting the suspects.
The value of responsibility also came into play. The station is responsible to the citizens. Some citizens might be disturbed by the video, but with the violence that is so regularly available on television, movies and videogames, if the video could move people to push for change and see the need to help south Chicago deal with its gang problems, then airing the video might save lives and help prevent future tragedies.
Lastly, WFLD-TV’s decision to air the video was, no doubt, fueled somewhat by its want to be better than its competition. At the time, it was the only news outlet that had the video, giving them an exclusive edge to attract audiences. If they had waited much longer, other outlets would have probably found a way to also get the tape.
Furthermore, if the station explained to viewers the reason it chose to air the video, then its transparency would allow viewers to see that their decision to do so was not just made from a ratings standpoint. Telling viewers that the station chose to show the video because it believed that citizens should know the reality of what is happening in south Chicago, could instill in viewers a sense of trust in the station if they think that WFLD-TV reporters are truly looking out for their best interest.
So who is whispering in WFLD-TV’s ear?
WFLD-TV used a somewhat utilitarian way of exploring the issues surrounding the video as it privileged the greater good of society over the individual. The only alternatives to airing the video might have been:
(a.) not airing the video at all and verbally describing its content to viewers– This would have taken away from the impact of the event and its brutality.
(b.) heavily editing the video– This would also erode the video’s honesty and accuracy in portraying the event it captured.
(c.) waiting until a later date to air to the video– If the station had waited to air the video, other stations might obtain it and show it first. Waiting would also not give the video the same impact that it would have right after Albert’s murder.
(d.) putting the video up online– The Internet would not really add much cushion in protecting those who did not want to or should not see such a graphic video. It might also not be able to reach Chicago citizens on such a vast scale as the nightly newscast might. It would at the very least, not grab as much immediate attention.
— Persons directly affected: Albert’s loved ones, law enforcement, the teens in the video, the viewers, and coworkers.
— Likely consequences: By not airing the video, Albert’s death would not have carried the weight that it did. Chicago citizens would not have gotten such a poignant picture of what was actually happening in their streets and would, therefore, not have been fully aware of the how badly help and change were needed in neighborhoods like Albert’s.
By airing the video, the station might have exposed some people to unwanted violence and hurt Albert’s friends and family in their darkest and most dire moments. Showing the video, however, could save lives if changes are made and communities like Albert’s get the attention and assistance they need to curb gang violence. If positive change was brought about by showing the brutal reality of Albert’s death, then Albert’s death would become more than just the result of senseless acts of violence. WFLD-TV would have been doing a disservice to the community if it glossed over such a violent event and not presented it to the community in the most brutal and honest manor it could.
— Major harm: Once again, Albert’s attackers could have fled after realizing that they could be identified by the video. The family could have been harmed by the video’s content and the fact that their loved one’s death was being broadcast across their community. The type of violence that resulted in Albert’s death is, however, the reality of what is happening everyday in Chicago.
After thoroughly examining this issue, I would have aired the video as WFLD-TV chose to do. At first I found the station’s decision cold and unreasonable, but after realizing that the video could open people’s eyes to a reality they might not otherwise get to experience and hopefully therefore push people to try and do something about gang violence, I determined that airing the edited video was justified. If even one life could be saved by aid brought about by those who saw and were disturbed by the video, then airing the tape would be worth it.
— By Katy Turnbull