Media Morality: Where Do We Draw the Line?

Written by Daedra-Isaacs Haylock presented in 2003 at the St John’s Junior College Signa Yorke Memorial Lecture, Photograph courtesy of Unsplash

A headline bordering on lewd, an embarrassingly pornographic description of a rape, a gruesome close-up camera shot of a horribly tragic traffic accident, a disrespectful close-up picture of a gunshot victim, an almost unfeeling interview with a survivor of some tragic occurrence.

I am sure we can all recall such instances that prompted us to question the necessity of such detail, the journalistic rationale of the reporter, or the news value and benefit to the viewing and reading public. At the heart of these questions is the issue of media morality or media ethics.

A journalist’s false representation of a person or purpose, a knowing or negligent omission of important fact to an issue, failure to thoroughly cover an issue, presentation of a re-enactment or file footage as truth or actual occurrence, a false claim in an advertisement….

These instances as well lie at the heart of the question of media morality or media ethics. Journalists the world over fight for the right to a free press and the public’s right to know. Those in Belize are no exception. The pages of US history are filled with stories of journalists who fought to protect those rights. The US First Amendment honored those rights with Constitutional recognition and protection. In Belize, although our journalistic history is not as long and meticulously documented, we – and I say we as I once practiced the craft known as journalism – have been just as protective, guarded, and even self-righteous about our right to a free press and the public’s right to know.

The system of rule developed and accepted almost the world over – democracy – has as integral blocks in its foundation the public’s right to question and to know and the press’ right to be free. While there’s no disputing that such emphasis is indeed rightly placed, should not or must not these rights, these powers come with responsibilities and important considerations. When the rights of one begin to infringe on those of another, it would seem to indicate the need for careful consideration, thorough questioning with an opportunity for balance and harmony to be re-established. That said; it is not foolhardy to peruse the question of media morality/media ethics.

Does the right to know grant journalists, media personalities, and personnel an unabridged, unbridled license and freedom? Can and should the right to know and the right to a free press be abridged by considerations and questions of societal good, societal context, and societal impact? Ultimately, does the right to know and the right to a free and uninhibited press outweigh the importance of any considerations of social impact and social good?

In the process of drafting this paper, similar questions were put to my once media colleagues. For some, there was undisputed agreement that while we all favored ethical considerations, we all had none. For others, ethical consideration may be nothing more than an unaffordable luxury. The high-stakes competition between media houses and the commercial and entertainment value of the product being produced were by far then the primary considerations.

That divergence in views then leads us to question: what is the primary purpose of the craft – journalism – that we seek to practice? At the risk of being criticized for being pedantic or cow-towing to the white US American’s view, I refer to definitions set out by several publications.

According to one text, Journalism’s primary purpose is to inform the public of events of importance and appropriate interest in a manner that is accurate and comprehensive. Another states that the information must be presented with sufficient background so as to be meaningful and not be sensationalized. Still, another states that news reporting must display humane respect for dignity, privacy, and the well-being of persons with whom the news relates. If you are to accept these definitions or explanations of what journalism is to be, then we begin to see the suggestions for ethical considerations.

With consideration of these definitions, it could then be said that ethics in the practice of journalism should include a commitment to a truthful presentation, a performance that strives towards objectivity, accuracy, fairness, and a performance with some degree of intelligence. It would seem that journalism should serve the general welfare of the public and honor the public’s trust. At the heart of the practice of this craft then should be a responsibility to the public’s interest.

Any allegiance to another cause or interest would then fly in the face of this responsibility. Gifts, favors, free travel, special treatment, privileges, or secondary employment could compromise the integrity that a journalist is expected to demonstrate. Conflict of interest real or apparent should then be avoided. In this accord, journalists are expected to make an honest effort not to offend the good taste of the public, not to offend or neglect the truth, and to differentiate clearly between fact and expression of opinion so as not to mislead. Journalists should show respect for the news source and the public’s dignity, privacy, rights, and well-being.

Less, it be misunderstood! Admittedly, there is no one common rule that clearly defines the “should be's” and “should not's”. It could be argued that much of what would offend good taste and the impact of a news report may differ from region to region, differ according to race, ethnic background, life experiences of the individual member of the public, religion, and culture. Quite a bit of what could be considered an offense to journalistic responsibilities to truth, fairness, accuracy, and objectivity may as well be subjective.

How do we then strike the balance in the production of a product or program for a mass audience? Even in a small country like Belize, such divergences in the background, beliefs, expectations, and cultural norms are clearly evident. One news editor may argue that because the news product is primarily produced for a Belize City audience that is exposed to 64 channels of cable sex and violence and because the portion of the audience seems to have fewer sensitivities, there lies a broader line of latitude.

But could such a rationale really be accepted? It is well-known that the same news product produced for Belize City travels to many of the other districts. Could you say that because something would not offend the good taste, injure the sensitivities or fly the in face of a particular portion of the consuming public’s ethical standards and moral norms, you have completed your duty and met your responsibilities?

Let’s examine some of the reports we have presented to you at one point or another. Much of what I will present by way of example will focus on the television medium as that is the one I am most familiar with in my “professional” practice.

A political uprising at the foot of Independence Hill or public outbursts and expressions of discontent over what is perceived to be corporate injustice. We, as journalists, would all stand on holy ground demanding that the story be told in its entirety.

At 6:30 p.m. the news begins, and the family is gathered to watch. The stories are brought to you in all their raw detail – from the public’s outcry and shout to a woman being trampled by the mobbing crowd, from a strongly disobedient crowd facing off with the law and its enforcers to shots fired into the out of control mob-like crowd. One story features a soldier firing his semiautomatic weapon into the crowd, the other shows young male protestors manhandled and roughly pushed into a police vehicle, and still another shows a young protestor falling to the ground, supposedly from being hit by a bullet somewhere in his leg. Did all this detail serve any journalistic value? Did it offend or did it go too far? Did it distort the information or was it just an honest real-to-life presentation of the events’ occurrences?

A woman is raped in a local nightclub. The story is carried on the masthead of a leading newspaper. The details are presented so graphically, if not embarrassingly pornographic. How much was too much? Where should the line have been drawn? Was it necessary to read the way it did? Did it offend the public’s good taste? Did it respect the dignity, right to privacy, and well-being of the person or persons with whom the news deals? Was it okay to present such graphic details because the victim’s name was not used?

Two people die in what still remains the boldest and most horrific robbery holdup/murder incident. The man and the woman were in a car in a desolate part of town. The woman was reportedly half-clothed. Rumors run wild that she was caught in the act of infidelity. The news reporter seeks out the surviving husband for an interview and questions the circumstances of his wife’s death. Was that going too far? Or was he a private citizen deserving of his privacy? Did the question about his wife’s supposed infidelity add to the information about the criminal act? Or was it merely pandering to drama, sensationalism, and gossip?

A horrific traffic accident on the road. At least two of the persons die on the scene. The others suffer life-threatening injuries. Both vehicles are badly mangled and crushed. The camera catches every last detail and spills it out just the same at 6:30.

A taxi driver goes missing. The news reporter seeks out the family for an interview. In the midst of interviewing the common-law wife, the horrific phone call comes in. Her husband was found dead, burnt in the trunk of his car. The woman overwhelmed with grief bursts into tears and falls to the ground in complete shock. Later that day, the news presents the entire detail. Was that too much information? Did it respect the woman’s privacy, dignity? Was the portrayal of her grief integral to telling the story?

The latter was a story I reported on some years ago. In hindsight, I will confess a refusal to air the sorrowful portrayal of the wife would not have deleted much fact or information integral to reporting the crime. Her crying and grief added to the drama and sensationalism of it all. It could be argued that the story not only presented the facts of the crime but also showed the public the true impact of the reckless behavior and disregard for life by the criminals. But did the story really seek to present that angle and even if it did, does it excuse the seemingly callous blow-by-blow video clipping?

And while in hindsight I may seek to admonish myself for some breach in ethical standing, journalists do not only offend moral standards by those things that we do but by those things we omit. Should we negligently or willfully omit a particular fact, should we fail to report or question a matter of public concern or importance or should we look the other way for fear, favor, or unfair double standard, we have erred and defied what has traditionally been expected as the journalistic ethic.

Television has the potential to do its reporting and editing right in front of the audience. Its ability to present news raw before being tested and refined to an approximation of truth and a demonstration of respect for privacy and dignity raises special ethical considerations. The ability to leave viewers with a ring of truth because they saw it with their own eyes would seemingly demand a higher level of responsibility and a strong commitment to fairness, objectivity, accuracy, and respect for some ethical standard. Television as a powerful medium can either contribute to the resolution of serious societal problems or exacerbate them beyond resolution.

Our decision to offer thorough coverage is a moral decision. We cannot stand on the moral high ground demanding the right to free press and the right to know and proceed with wanton negligence, and greed for reporting fame and popularity. We cannot tell a large portion of our consuming public that commercial and entertainment value takes precedence and their expectations of journalistic ethics are unaffordable luxuries. Our demand to be free, to question, and to know demands a higher level of accountability.

While we admit that there is no one common rule or guide and that the definition of codes, established boundaries and acceptable practices are only a beginning, it is that start that moves us from the mere practice of a craft towards the true aspiration and attainability of professional status.