Nov. 20, 2010
Ruben van Assouw, a 9-year-old boy and the only survivor of a plane crash in Libya, was interviewed from his hospital bed by the the Dutch daily newspaper, De Telegraaf.
This is the original piece, and here is the translated copy.
It was reported that Assouw couldn’t remember anything from the accident. He had been in the pediatric care for nine hours and then had to go through an hour-long surgery. He woke up to find a reporter on the other line ready to interview him about being the only survivor. Assouw’s parents and older brother died in the wreck.
“My name is Ruben, and I live in Holland. It’s all right, but my legs are very painful,” Assouw said in the interview after waking up.
There is also video of the boy in the hospital bed that someone posted.
After the paper ran, people were disconcerted with how the paper went about getting the interview with the boy. The paper’s editors came back with a formal apology. However, the apology seemed to say, “I’m sorry that people were so upset about this” rather than saying “I’m sorry that we conducted the interview.”
Analysis:
People were outraged by what happened with the Dutch newspaper. People could hardly believe that the media could be that pushy to go interview a 9-year-old boy who was the only survivor and had lost his entire family.
The situation becomes ethical, because as stated in this article, “Where is the line between the public’s right to know and a severely injured, recently orphaned young boy’s right to privacy?”
What’s Your Problem:
I have to decide if this is a moral or non-moral dilemma. However, this is clearly a moral dilemma. It seems that many news stories that involve children always seem to have a moral issue attached. This whole problem comes from the idea of “need to know vs. want to know.” It’s true that the media believed that the media should get to know this only survivor of the crash. However, does that mean that you sacrifice the privacy of the boy who hardly knows that his family is gone? How long do you wait to interview the only victim or should you even wait? This is a dilemma that many news outlets had to deal with.
The overall issue is how much privacy should a child receive? He had no parents or relatives there to protect him from the media. Was it fair to give the child an interview when he himself had really no recollection of what happened or knowledge of what was going on in the present? Many think not.
Why Not Follow the Rules?
This question always seems easier in theory than it does in reality. Rules are the basis by which many people follow to live their lives. However, when it comes to the media, the line always becomes blurred as to which rules to follow.
There are governmental rules such as the Freedom of Information Act, and there are ethical rules, such as the code of ethics that many journalists follow. However, that line becomes blurred, because journalists don’t always have to follow those rules.
What were the right rules to follow in this situation? It is true that journalists need to “Seek Truth and Report It,” but how much of the truth should be reported? Journalists should also minimize harm and act independently.
Journalists also have to remember where they are located when following the rules. The rules in the United States are not the same everywhere else. This boy is from Holland, but he is located in Libya. The rules for journalists there might be entirely different everywhere else in the world.
However, MSNBC had no problem reporting the story. They used similar images to accompany their story about the boy. They could have chosen to use the photos of the crash for their leading photo, but they also took the photo of the boy in the bed. The Huffington Post did the same thing with its story.
Now, as a journalist, I would agree that the biggest part of the story is how there is a lone survivor. However, how would journalists have treated the situation if it was not a child but an older man? Would the public be less outraged?
Who Wins, Who loses?
I have to debate back and forth in this situation about who wins more in the scheme of things. The reporters seemed to win and the paper because they got the interview that every journalist really did want. They got to say that they interviewed the only survivor right after he came out of surgery. They were thinking that this would increase their readership in the paper.
However, as reported, it said that a Twitter account, @telegraafboycot, called for a boycott of the newspaper that gained about 6,000 ‘followers.’
“On Tuesday, Frank Volmer – who is the President of Telegraaf Media Netherlands – confirmed that the paper lost at least 1,000 subscribers following the interview. ‘We paid a high price for that,’ Volmer told the Trouw newspaper,” the article said.
The paper, overall, seemed to lose readership because of this interview. Did the reporters and paper really win? I think that the paper truly did not have their loyalties in mind when they were reporting this story. They were thinking too much about increasing the volume of readership for the paper and getting the breaking news story rather than focusing on what the moral and ethical decision should have been.
The next group to think about is the public. How much did the public learn from this interview with the boy? I would say that many would think not a lot. In fact, the only statement from the boy really was that he was in pain and he didn’t know anything. The public already knew from other sources that he was the only survivor, he was in Libya and he was in a hospital bed without a family. The public really didn’t learn anything else from the interview. It seems that more people are losing in this situation than everyone thought.
The last and most important aspect to think about when it comes to who wins and who loses, is the boy. How much did the boy gain from doing this interview? Everyone knew that he was already going to have cameras flying in his face for the rest of his childhood, because he’s now an orphan and only survivor. This interview only seemed to make him upset and realize that he wasn’t talking to anyone in his family. It seems to show that the boy did not receive much out of the interview but total realization that he didn’t have a family and that he was totally alone. I think that the journalists caused more harm in this situation than good.
The loyalty of the paper should have been to the child’s privacy. I also have to take in to account the doctors and allowing all of the videos and newspapers in the patient’s room. Did they believe that they would increase the significance of their hospital by having this survivor there? Were they thinking about the boy’s privacy or increasing their numbers in the hospital? Again, this goes back to the ‘Who Follows the Rules?’ question. The rules in that country might be different than in America. I am used to a hospital with strict restrictions on patients, HIPAA laws and public relations. In different countries, none of that might exist and probably doesn’t.
What’s it Worth?
This is all about values. Again, this becomes tricky when dealing with other countries. Not everyone’s values are the same. They aren’t the same in the United States, and the definition of values stretches even further when you cross the border. Different cultures have different values. Beyond cultures, different professions have different values. For instance, a public relations person is going to have very different values than a journalist.
What was it worth for the reporter to call this boy and get this interview? For most, it seemed like it wasn’t worth anything.
The truth seemed to be the most important part of this entire story. It was true that the boy had lost his parents, that the plane had crashed and that the boy was the only survivor. However, how much truth was told through the boy in the interview? He was in pain, and he didn’t know anything. Most people could probably assume that.
In the book, alternative truth telling is discussed. There are different levels of truth telling. The interview seemed to be an alternative truth. They were trying to use the boy’s interview to boast their own careers. All of it was true, but it seemed to be for unethical causes.
Who’s Whispering in Your Ear?
Consequentialism and Utility are two ways to approach this situation. It seemed that the reporters took the Consequentialism approach. They focused on the moral status of the outcome rather than looking at other ways to reach the same outcome. Could they have taken a different approach when interviewing the boy? They could have waited a few days and gotten an even better interview. They really didn’t gain that much doing it initially, because the boy had no idea what was going on.
However, taking the Deontology approach might not have worked so well either. If the reporters had focused on the duties, rules and moral status of the decision, they might have never done the interview. I think doing the interview at some point is a great news story. However, wait until the boy has left the hospital and has taken some time to realize that he doesn’t have a family anymore. It’s almost as if two theories needed to come together to create the perfect outcome for the reporters.
Conclusions:
In general, the reporters were wrong in this situation, and any news station that glorified that the interview was a good idea is wrong. The boy should be able to have the right to say no, but because he is so young, he doesn’t know his rights. It was not fair for the reporters to barge in and take advantage of a situation like that.
As a reporter, I would have never done that. I can honestly say that I would not be able to live with myself or handle the situation. My heart would go out to the boy, and I would be like a lot of the public. It does not surprise me that the paper lost readership when they ran this story. The boy’s privacy is the most important thing in the matter. However, I would have tried to get an interview a few days later when he has taken a few days to put his mind together. He needs some time to even realize what has happened to him. He hardly knew that he was making national news from his hospital bed.
— By Patty Vaughan