Wrestling with ethics

There’s an almost complete list below of what I’ve been reading today as I try and get my head around the ethics of NBC’s (and so many others’) broadcast of video, photos and writings from the Virginia Tech madman.

Was it right, journalistically and ethically? You could teach a half-semester-long ethics class on that. And I think that’s the type of consideration the question needs: things are too heated now, in the immediate aftermath. The emotions are too raw.

I went online yesterday and watched some of NBC’s coverage, enough to see the ranting and hear the sour, twisted words. It didn’t help me understand the story or the killer, because there are things you can’t understand and insanity and evil are among them. Nor did it move the story forward for me in any way, or add depth or resonance or even context. Even before the broadcast, we’d been told he was angry, a loner, obsessed with violence.

Despite all that, I think the decision to show an edited portion of the material was sound journalism. When the news is big, we need to know as much as we can (but not everything). Individual pieces may mean little on their own. In the end, it’s the totality that matters. And, for me, sometimes it’s important to see.

I think the decision was ethically sound, too, but the considerations are much more complex: Does too-extensive coverage encourage copycats? What obligation does the media owe to those most directly and deeply affected? At what point does journalism slide into sensationalism? What is the role of the media in not just covering the story, but providing at least a starting point for recovery and conversation? Where does compassion fit into the spectrum of journalistic values? Does media have the right to withhold information that some (but not all) people consider important?

No matter how well developed the various journalism codes of ethics are, or how often these questions are debated, there are no easy answers. As an editor, I never faced a decision of this magnitude, but there were those that kept me awake at night, both before and after they were made. Ethics ain’t easy.

All of this doesn’t mean I don’t have questions. Did the decision of broadcasters to continue airing audio and video the day after their release constitute good journalism or was it wandering over the line into sensationalism? The latter, I think. Did CBC’s decision not to air any of the audio or video really mean anything when it was well known the sound and images were widely available elsewhere? That was the first thing I wondered after I read their statement this morning (so did Deborah Jones; see link below). Did my local daily, more than 3,500 kilometres away from the Virginia Tech campus, really need to run a photo of the killer, pointing a handgun at the viewer, as the main image on its front page today? At the moment, I really don’t know.

Link list:

Dave Winer: Vlogging comes to mass murder
BBC: Police ‘regret’ at killer’s video
TV Newser: Va. Tech Shootings: New Statement By NBC Defends Decision To Publish Material
Huffington Post: NBC’s Tough Decision, Made Tougher On No Time
Poynter: Decision Examined: Poynter Discussion of NBC’s Use of the Killer’s Video
Canadian Journalist: On giving a killer what he wants
Dan Gillmor: Maniac’s Video, Ethics and Tactics