Nov. 20, 2010
Several British newspapers used a quote inspired by Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video to describe the looks and actions of victims following the July 7, 2005 bombing of a London subway. The exact quote from a police officer on scene reads, “It was like Michael Jackson’s Thriller video. They were just covered in soot, their hair was all over the place, you just basically saw the whites of their eyes.”
Many newspapers used the quote, but the Daily Star has been catching heat lately because of the way that they used the idea in the quote to propel readers into an Oct. 28 story, which rehashed the terrorist attack. I’m going to examine this incident using the “5W’s and H” approach and use moral philosophy to determine whether or not it was ethical for this article to be published.
The SPJ Code of Ethics states that part of minimizing harm is to show good taste. It could be argued that the lede of the Daily Star article is not written in good taste. But, before I jump to conclusions, I’m going to use the “5W’s and H” approach to analyze the issue.
1. What’s your problem?
I believe that this is a moral dilemma, because it relates the victims of a terrorist attack to zombies in a way that makes it seem like the writer of the story is trying to make readers laugh. The lede says, “VICTIMS of the 7/7 terror bombings looked like ‘characters from Michael Jackson’s Thriller video,’ it was claimed yesterday.” I doubt that the victims and their families would see these tragic events as a laughing matter. Considering that the event happened only five years ago, and that 52 people died while over 800 were injured, some people believe that the article should have never been published.
The officer who said the original quote was on the scene of the attack as the events were unfolding. He watched as bloody people were helped out of the subway tunnel and into waiting ambulances. With everything unfolding around him, the officer was probably pumped up with adrenaline. While some people might post the blame on him for comparing the images with a song, it was ultimately the staff at the Daily Star that published the story.
2. Why not follow the rules?
Countless ethical codes would go against the Daily Star’s decision to publish the story with the lede that they used. This is because almost all ethical codes have a clause dealing with minimizing harm. Thus, spending time on codes probably isn’t the best approach to take on this issue.
Instead I’m going to look at Jeremy Bentham’s idea that journalists should report things that entail: proximity, timeliness, prominence, consequence/impact, oddity/novelty, conflict and currency.
The proximity of the attack to the newspapers who published the stories is close considering that this all happened in the same country. The people involved were almost all British citizens, so it is a possibility that some of the readers of these papers might know the victims who the quote refers to. The timeliness of the event is to be expected. T
hese articles sprang up near the five year anniversary of the attacks. It is common for papers to talk about past events years after they happen. The people who are described in the quote are prominent. They’ve had stories written about them before. Readers might not know each of them by name but they do associate them with the carnage in the pictures that they have viewed in the years after the event. This event definitely had impact considering it was a terrorist attack held against one of the most prominent cities in the world.
The event itself isn’t odd, but the quote used to describe it is. There is definitely conflict that arises from this story. This event as well as others has shown that terrorism is one of the main threats to organized society today. The story also raises conflict because some of the people who were victims of the attack feel offended by the choice of words used in the lede. This event is current because it was newsworthy when it happened, and people still want to learn more about it today.
3. Who wins, who loses?
The Daily Star is the clear loser in this situation. They may have damaged their credibility and readership by publishing an article with a distasteful lede. I suppose that Michael Jackson might also be seen as a loser here. Despite being dead, his legacy might have taken a hit because his name will forever be associated with this article and event. The police officer has probably also been criticized for his comments. In a case like this, their really are no winners. This lede hurts everyone involved.
4. What’s it worth?
After delving into my own set of personal values, I was able rationalize the issue. I’m sure that the police officer was being honest and imaginative when he said that the victims looked like zombies crawling out of the subway. Ultimately, it was the newspaper who decided to run the story as is. The lede shows a clear lack of respect for the victims in a way that is impolite to the readers. The newspaper should have shown more self-control and responsibility when making their decision. The choice of words used doesn’t seem very tasteful.
5. Who’s whispering in your ear?
To make my decision I considered what Jeremy Bentham said the things that journalists should seek out and report. I felt that his ideas were more useful than any ethical code because many of the codes clearly go against the Daily Star’s decision to run the story with the lede intact. I felt that going over his philosophy was a more neutral alternative. My own values and morals were also a factor in deciding the ethics of this case. Values like honesty, respect, responsibility and self-control all were contributing factors in my decision.
6. How’s your decision going to look?
I decided that it was unethical to use the police officers quote to draw readers into a story talking about the London terrorist attack. I came to the decision because it goes against my own personal morals and it also goes against various ethical codes. Using Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy also helped me in reaching this decision. I feel that the writer shouldn’t have used the officer’s quote in the way that he did. The editor should have caught the quote as well.
– By Bradley Morgan