Ethics in Reporting

Poynter's NewsU consists of free online courses and references for students, journalists, and anyone interested in the workings of the media. Upon being directed to the ethics section, which corresponded with a section in class, I found it interesting applying some of the principles to my own experiences both participating in and watching news stories.

Part of ethical reporting involves accuracy and fairness. Sometimes, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth involves unpleasant details or those that may seem irrelevant to the story.

The Society of Professional Journalists has set forward four guiding principals for ethics in journalism:

- Seek the truth and report it as fully as possible
- Act independently
- Minimize harm
- Be accountable

Of these, I find the "minimize harm" principle to be the most interesting. When does journalism cross the line from informing to exploiting?

Years ago, my family and I were victims of a prairie wildfire, in which we lost outbuildings and beloved, cherished animals. As I was putting out hotspots on that horrible afternoon, a battered old car with out-of-state plates pulled in the driveway and two young women got out with notepads and cameras and claimed to be writing a story. When asked for a statement, I gave them this, "Get off my property." They complied, and quickly...my mom always credits something she calls my "mad Amazon death stare" (and claims is second only to Frank Martin's in the "looks that could kill" category) with an ability to get my point across. I had no intent of being photographed red-eyed, sooty, and distraught; and I had no intent of providing a statement to wrench anyone else's heart. There were enough already broken, and at that moment my privacy was all that was left to guard.

The next morning, while I slept, KAKE TV from Wichita interviewed her and a clip aired on the news that night. I didn't know about it until my best friend called to say her dad had seen it. It was tastefully done, my mom looked good, but it was extraordinarily painful to watch. I knew what had happened, I could see the rubble out the window, but it was only slowly becoming reality, until seeing it on TV drove it home in a minute-long clip. The campus newspaper and TV station sent an email asking to do a story. I didn't want to, and asked my boss (himself a former journalist) what I should do. He told me that if I didn't want to, I could just ignore it, I owed them nothing.

Looking back, I can't fault them. What happened was newsworthy, and everyone adhered to the words of the Guiding Principle: Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. When I told one pair to go away, they went; when I ignored another request I was left alone; and the journalist who interviewed my mom was extremely tasteful.

Years later, the Wichita media was focused on the BTK case. A serial killer, long presumed to be dead, imprisoned, or gone from the area, had reappeared and was sending cryptic messages to the media and police. These missives appeared with regularity. Amid straight reporting were human interest stories about the victims, interviews with surviving friends and family members, and stories about how their children were faring after losing parents. Some were tasteful, some were disgusting. KAKE news, apparently one of the killer's favorites, led the way in the over-the-top emotional stories. At the head of this was Susan Peters (who I find annoying on a good day, the woman makes a story about the level of water in the Arkansas sound like a baby's funeral) who in one spectacularly awful interview brought a victim's son back to the house where his mother was murdered while he was locked in the bathroom. He was obviously emotional, but she kept prompting him for memories and feelings all while clinging to him from behind like a baby baboon. I found this disgusting, and so did many other people who saw it.

I would say this example crossed the line, as the code expands the principle to include "avoid pandering to lurid curiosity". If this didn't qualify, I don't know what would...there was no pressing need to bring him to the house, no question of where it was, and no reason to air this other than to exploit his grief.

Ethics are a tricky point, and while there are guidelines, it is up to each journalist and editor to determine whether stories are suitable for airing, and ultimately to the audience to determine the same.