Journalism and Ethics

Today I read a very interesting article that highlights the ethical issues of journalism. Question is: at what point it behooves a journalist to stop reporting and sympathize with victims? How does a journalist best serve the society; by reporting the story in the most thought proving way or by reacting humanely?

Recently a photograph captured by photographer Paul Hansen, was chosen as the best International News Image at the Swedish Picture of the Year Awards. The subject is a 15-year-old Haitian earthquake victim Fabienne Cherisma who was shot in the head by the police for looting two plastic chairs and three framed pictures.

The image is striking. To me it signifies the scale of destruction in Haiti, the desperation of the poor, and psychological scarring of children. To others it may throw questions about police brutality, ethics of stealing for survival or the unfairness of life. But what we can all agree on is that the picture captures all that is sad about a phenomenal tragedy. Pictures like these force us to empathize with victims at a very personal level, and are instrumental in raising awareness and money for rescue and relief efforts.

But there is another side to the story. Here is a photograph by Nathan Weber, showing a group of photographers crowding around the poor girls body. Sadly, the media circus continued even in front of the bereaved family.

You can't help but wonder at the intentions of these journalists? Is it all about getting a big story? Do they even care about the victims? In fact is it their job to care about the victims? Don't they best serve the society by just doing their job? What about individual right to privacy? Why should anyone profit from a victims misery? And finally why should such controversial pictures be awarded top prizes?

Phan Thị Kim Phúc in Trang Bang, Vietnam
by Nick Ut/AP, 1972 Pulitzer Prize

Emaciated girl, Sudan 
by Kevin Carter, 1994 Pulitzer Prize

The debate is old. From Vietnam to Sudan, there have been photographs that make you question professional ethics. The problem is particularly severe for reporters because unlike professions like engineering or medicine, there is no objective measure of repercussions. A doctor can be sued for bad judgements on the operating table and an engineer can be tried for a faulty bridge. But how do make journalists accountable? In most democracies libel laws tend to side with the press, and rightfully so. The lack of negative feedback has led to a situation where there are no repercussions for screwing up. It is acceptable to run a story that is in bad taste or is false. Somebody's life gets ruined and all they can hope for is a one line retraction in the next issue. In some sense lawyers suffer from the same problem. It is part of the job to help acquit a serial killer on a technicality!


What do you think?