Sept. 4, 2010
The Society of Professional Journalists states that one should show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage and that one should also be especially sensitive when associating with children and inexperienced sources.
“To be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief,” according to SPJ.
So, does this not count when a Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf, interviewed, exposed and photographed a 9-year-old plane-crash survivor? Ruben van Assouw was the lone survivor of a plane crash in Lybia in May. He was alone in a hospital and had just came out of surgery when a reporter had accidentally gotten him on the phone for an interview.
“The paper claims it got the boy on the phone by accident, through his surgeon. The interview reveals how the boy bursts into tears as he realizes he is not talking to his family but to a journalist. It becomes clear he is not even aware the plane has crashed and his parents and brother are dead,” as stinkyjournalism.org reported.
ABC News, AOL News, The New York Daily, The NY Post, USA Today and Yahoo News all published quotes and articles from the interview. As found on stinkyjournalism.org, The New York Post wrote this at the end of its article:
“The interview drew an angry rebuke from the Dutch Foreign Ministry, which accused the paper of violating the boy’s privacy, and asked the Libyans to keep reporters at bay.” But, the article featured a photo gallery and a large close-up photo of Ruben in his hospital bed with the caption: “Anguish: Libya jet-crash survivor Ruben van Assouw, in his bed, finally was told his parents and brother died.”
Even though this is not illegal, it can flaunt the lines of privacy according to a legal scholar and University of Amsterdam professor Egbert Dommering. He said that publishing Ruben’s picture was “a serious violation of privacy,” at odds with Article VIII of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private life. He believes that a post-surgery interview with a minor is over-the-top, according to stinkyjournalism.org.
To be a journalist one has to decide what is morally right and wrong on a daily basis but to me this seems to be morally sick. Getting an article on the survivor of a plane crash is all peachy , but when reporters hassle a 9-year-old child who has no family and no idea where he is at for an article, it has gone too far. I understand that when a news story breaks you have to cover it, but why take it to that extent? That is when you go for the survivor angle and leave it at that.
As posted on Radio Netherlands Worldwide, moral propriety was breached. Media ethics expert Huub Evers, Ruben has become an icon for the tragedy and papers are therefore entitled to show his pictures, with a modicum of restraint. An interview, however, is really over the limit, Evers stresses. “Children ought to be left alone, especially in these circumstances.”
As I read in my “Doing Ethics in Media” textbook, you have a Legal-Ethical Wall and can pull the card that it may not be ethical but it is not illegal so it is OK. On the other side, you can say that it is ethical and legal so it does not matter either way. I see this issue as legal (flaunting a very thin line though) and unethical.
“To behave legally, within legal limits, is not necessarily to behave ethically. Note the big difference between the ethical question of ‘What behaviors do I choose to engage in?’ and the legal question of ‘What behaviors are we unwilling to tolerate in this society,” according to “Doing Ethics in Media.”
As readers were outraged about this story in the Netherlands, papers have run apology letters and have been apologizing . The De Telegraaf has run apologies that say they never meant to take advantage of the situation. But how can one apologize for doing something that was so unethical from the beginning?
This could be a problem that is associated with assigned relationships. As a journalist the reporters might have been told to cover the story and get as much as they can. Afraid for a job that is not in a thriving economy, that reporter could have been in a position of “work-made-for-hire.” The reporter had to do what they were told to do or run the chances of being fired. This also dives into the pool of uncertainty. If the reporter needed the job and believed it was morally wrong, what was the reporter supposed to do? The reporter got grilled for this article but the one behind it was more-than-likely an editor who sent the reporter out to cover the story. That reporter could have had it easier if he would have known about the “5W’s and H.”
The following questions should have been running through the reporter’s mind as the article was being reported and written:
What’s your problem?
Why not follow the rules?
Who wins, who loses?
What’s it worth?
Who’s whispering in your ear?
As a reporter I could say that I would have a hard time going to the hospital this child was at and interviewing or photographing him. First off, the problem was that the child was just that, a child. He was a minor without family. To follow the rules, you would have to think the rules out and weigh the pros-and-cons. The rules are different for different reporters. In this case, the child lost and so did the newspaper. There was nothing worth the interview. The newspaper’s reputation blew up for doing the interview but not for a great reason either. That could go back to the publicity side of the situation. The newspaper was doing business, it got publicity and now more people know of this newspaper. Everyone could have been whispering in this journalist’s ears: The editor, the readers, the victim’s families and the child’s family.
The interview was done by phone which could have made it easier on the heart strings. It only added a thin cushion to the jagged rock the reporter would later land on.
– By Jennifer Gorham