<< SUPERFICIALITY TRANSCENDED ~ MAIN ~ LEN EVANS >>
EXPERTS REVIEW JOURNALISTIC ETHICS
Scandal! Journalists assist dramatic footage:
A group of Indian television journalists gave a man matches and diesel to help him commit suicide in order to get dramatic footage which was later broadcast on the news, police said.
The man subsequently died. That report brought to you by Reuters.
According to the article, Indian Reality Television sounds all too frightening.
Then again, why should we trust a report in The Age?
The problem is this term “journalist”. Once upon a time, “reporters” knew their job was to “report” the news. Now, it seems all too many “journalists” are happy to report their opinion.
Well at least it sounds like the abettors may be off to jail. That would be a new twist for the journalist types.
Posted by tabitharuth on 2006 08 17 at 11:54 AM • permalinkThere was a case somewhat similar to this years ago in the US. I remember discussing it in a university course on ethics.
Apparently, a suicidal man called a TV station to a park where he doused himself with gasoline and gave a rambling speech before lighting himself on fire. The TV crew essentially did nothing but roll film.
The conundrum was what was the media’s responsibility to the man: should they “involve” themselves in the “story”, did their attention maybe cause the man to follow through or might he have done it anyway, etc?
When do journalists stop being human beings and vice versa ?
Tricky stuff, journalism. But that Indian story is bad!
#5 gson,
There are other blogs you could read if you don’t like this one, Kos is probably right up your alley.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 08 17 at 12:28 PM • permalinkIt sounds like one of those moral dilemma puzzles, where you can’t tell which side to come down on.
On the one hand, you owe the guy an attempt to prevent his committing suicide.
On the other hand, you get money from advertisers for the eyeballs you attract with your great video if you help him out.
Here’s where the ethics come in.
Should you split the proceeds with your producer.
The problem is this term “journalist”. Once upon a time, “reporters” knew their job was to “report” the news. Now, it seems all too many “journalists” are happy to report their opinion.
Part of the problem is every “journalist” thinks he’s a Woodward or Bernstein—or even Kolchak—when they’re really just Ted Baxters.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 08 17 at 12:42 PM • permalinkThe real problem with the industry of journalism is actually a form of intellectual inbreeding. No one is allowed to comment on journalists but journalists. No one allowed to critique journalism except journalists. Journalists listen to no one except other journalists.
The both beliefs held by many, if not most, journalists that they are some form of great gods on high looking down and passing judgement on the feeble endeavors of the puissant humans below them, or are some ultra transnational race of being immune to the laws of man or nature, both come from that inbreeding.
Should you split the proceeds with your producer.
It should be a three-way split, with a portion going to gson. Sounds like s/he needs a job.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 17 at 01:17 PM • permalinkWell, at least gson doesn’t just barrack for terrorists, but for all kinds of humanity-challenged assholes. Seriously, “simplification of a tragic story”, WTF? Exactly which part of
“We have seized footage clearly showing a group of journalists handing over matches and some inflammable substance - which we later verified to be diesel - to the victim,” ...
screams “tragedy” at you?
At least our resident nuancy boy is consistent in his utter lack of moral fibre, I guess.
Apparently, a suicidal man called a TV station to a park where he doused himself with gasoline and gave a rambling speech before lighting himself on fire. The TV crew essentially did nothing but roll film.
Reporters are idiots. Call 911, then stall the guy till the negotiator gets there, then film (covertly if necessary) whatever happens. Guy gets talked out of it, he’s alive and you’ve got a riveting bit of tape with a heartwarming ending. Guy goes ahead with it, he may or may not still be alive and you’ve got a riveting bit of tape with a tragic ending.
The Indian journos crossed the line between depraved indifference and aiding and abetting.
Rather than discourage gson, I would like to see him provide something more than one line questions.
He swans in here, makes a statement without supporting it substantively, apparently never reading the item under discussion and slopes out again.
You got something to say, gson? Say it, man!
Shit or get off the pot!
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 08 17 at 04:23 PM • permalinkLooks like journalists are now making the same claim as lawyers. That is, they say they have their own ethical code, a different one from the one which applies to the rest of us. And hence they claim that in doing their job they get a pass on things which would be a affront to common decency if the rest of us did them.
I think most people believe that profesional ethics or journalistic ethics should be an addition to the moral code that applies to everyone not a replacement.
Posted by Lloyd Flack on 2006 08 17 at 06:51 PM • permalinkYeah Razor, I thought that was odd too.
Posted by Harry Flashman on 2006 08 18 at 12:34 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
And Reuters has a former “People’s Daily World” writer, a Communist Party USA propagandist writing pseudo-dispatches from Havana, praising Fidel and all that crap. Sheesh.