Do journalism ethics exist?

Question

It concerns me that when a crime is committed that the details are provided to those of us who have no control over the situation. The techniques criminals use in committing crimes (often successfully) is reported knowing that the information often results in copycatting. When they report that a person has been murdered, does the general public really need to know the gruesome details? It's not that I lack compassion for the victims & their families but I feel this excess information is unnecessary. Do they do this just to fill time or are journalists completely desensitized?

Answer 1

That's a fine line, and reporters are constantly trying to figure out how to deal with this particular issue. I'm not particularly concerned with copycat crime, because that information on technique is in the public domain -- so it's best that everyone knows how a robbery took place in order to be better prepared to defend against it.

The crime/murder area is admittedly a tough one. Sadly, some of the details sell, and there will be a segment of the media that will capitalize by printing the lurid details. However, ost outlets, despite what you think, are pretty responsible on these things. Reporters usually know more than what they print, believe it or not.

And, journalists are people too, and they get shocked like the rest of us. But as Jimmy Breslin once said, they aren't all covering flower shows -- they have a job to do.

Answer 2

Ethics, quite honestly, exist only within the boundaries of the law. Newspapers are businesses with lots of competitors and they will print whatever they believe will sell well, under the constraints of whatever the law dictates.

Major papers have their own in-house lawyers and a reporter sends anything s/he has written that could be legally dodgy to the lawyer  - then the subbed (edited) version, with headline and captions, goes up again for clearance before it is printed.

Journos are not desensitised but we usually do have one eye on what will make a good story - the professional eye as well as the personal, if you like, and that often overrides our own sense of "taste".

To give an example, there was a particularly horrible murder about 15 years ago of a two-year-old boy by two 10-year-olds and we had to report the details of how he died. It was nasty for everyone and those of us with small children were particularly upset - I remember taking it in turns with other subeditors to work on that story, where one person would normally work on the entire thing, and going off to the toilets for a cry in private afterwards. But every detail allowed by the lawyer still went in the paper and nobody quibbled with that - it was our job to inform the public what had happened and if people didn't want to read it, they didn't have to.

Withholding information that could help a criminal isn't ethics - it's usually under direction from a judge or the police. That info will go in the paper like a shot if there is no direction from above.

Answer 3

Yes ethics exist for journalists.  When the police release information about a crime, they usually withhold key facts that only the criminal would know.  That way, if someone confesses, the police can ask questions about the withheld information to weed out the ones who just want their name or picture in the newspaper.  It saves time and energy so the police can focus on the investigation.

Also, some of the facts printed in the newspaper can be useful for the general public. While I agree certain gruesome items can be left out of newspapers, other details can help flush out other victims who may be able to shed more light on the case.