NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... criminals living in their neighbourhood? Eg. the rapist. The ethical responsibility in respecting the privacy of the children and the responsibility of keeping the public informed for their own safety must be weighed up. Journalists, as members of the press have obligations to their employer and the community in which they work.
They have responsibility for the material they write and the effect it has, and will have on the people they write about both directly and indirectly. Journalists also have a duty to themselves. The once valid use of the defence: 'the public's right to know', in the US and Australia in the 1950 's regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) is often used by the media to "justify those media actions dictated solely by competitive pressures" (Hurst and White, 1994). "The quest for healthy circulation figures breeds a powerful desire to scoop the opposition or to publish a story with sensational impact that titillates readers." It is this sensationalism that is sought after by some journalists which causes the greatest invasion of privacy irrespective of whether it means stealing the right of people to grieve, or to deal with traumatic situations such as war and death. Most 'newsworthy's tories that are broadcast by the media revolve around tragedy. Photographs, especially of the dead are part of a disturbing trend to focus on disasters. One image that remains vivid in the mind of many people is that of a polish girl pictured in a field grieving over the blood splattered body of her older sister who was killed by the Germans in 1939.
This image was recently re-published in the 75 th Anniversary issue of Time Magazine in March 1998 (nearly 60 years after the photograph was taken). The photo opportunity was obviously foremost in the photographer's mind as opposed to rushing to the girl's aid. In February 1996, The New York Times ran two photos (of two different situations) of parents identifying the bodies of their dead children. The media was present to publish the moment in which their greatest private grief was expressed, the moment that their children's bodies were identified. "The first photo was taken just as Maria Fernandes was shown the body of her 10 -month-old son killed in a Brazilian mudslide. The second photo showed two fathers, Vincent Balejado and Joseph Nunez, identifying their children drowned in a ferry boat disaster in the Philippines." (Mattimoe, 1996).
In order to clinch the photograph that most graphically conveys the grief of the scene a photographer may take several rolls of film of several different families. Very rarely is the media confronted by these families for having, as one father stated: 'robbed us of our grief'. In the United States, one editor was confronted by the father of a family who was pictured with the body of one of his children after being dragged from a drainage canal. This rarely occurs because people are often situated a million miles away from where the photos are published and are not given the opportunity to respond to the publication. Due to the frequency of such photographs, they often go unnoticed. Little opposition is expressed regarding the distaste of such photographs.
Would this be the case if the body of a public figure were to be photographed and paraded on the pages of newspapers and magazines? Why is it that the publication of photographs revealing the most private grief of 'unknown' families not be regarded as a violation of privacy? Photographs of public figures taken in similar situations to those in third world countries for example would more likely be regarded as tasteless. One of many invasion of privacy stories that vividly showed the lack of respect that is shown by the press towards the privacy and sensibility of individuals while keeping the public informed is reflected in the following example described by News Photographer in March 1997. A reporter discovered that the local police station was gathering evidence about an old murder case and that the skull of a six-year-old child who was murdered two years earlier had been found. The reporter visited the station and asked the police chief to remove the skull from a box and tilt it so that the photojournalist could take a close-up shot of the skull.
Although the tape taken was regarded as unsuitable to broadcast by some people in the newsroom, the news director overruled the objections and decided to screen the footage regardless. Newsroom staff and the family of the victim (who were not consulted) saw the footage for the first time when it was broadcast on the 6 p. m. news. The story opened with footage of a memorial service for the young victim along with footage of the family and photos of the child before the child's death. The memorial service cannot be regarded as part of the 'public right to know'.
It was a private affair that the public did not need to be informed about. However, it was not the footage of the memorial service that disturbed the family, it was the close-up shots that followed of animal remains originally thought to be that of the victims, followed by a frontal close-up of the tilted skull facing directly towards the camera while a voice-over identified the skull as belonging to the victim. Broadcasting images of the skull was recognised by the courts as having a devastating emotional impact. The court stated that the shot of the skull was 'intentionally included to create sensationalism for the report'. Staff of the station later admitted that the images were unnecessary, not newsworthy, and should not have been aired. The station also recognised that the family should have been consulted, and later apologised for their behaviour.
Apologies are often made too little too late when the emotional impact of what has been aired is realised, or even thought about. Although the decisions the press must make regarding what is investigated and what is reported are difficult, it is important to note that the press often broadcast stories for the purposes of entertainment rather than for simply informing the public. Due to the competitive nature of the industry, ratings, circulation, profit and the speed at which news is conveyed (in an attempt to provide information first) are often given priority over respecting the privacy and sensibility of individuals. The press does not often realise the importance of the role they play in society and the responsibility and care that accompanies that role.
Bibliography: References 1. Belief, A. & Chadwick, R. (Eds. ). (1992). Ethical Issues in Journalism. London: Routledge. 2. Elshtain, J. (1996). Bad Publicity.
The New Republic. v. 215, n 7 p. 25. 3. Hurst, J. & White, S. (1994). Ethics and the Australian News Media. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia Pty. Ltd. 4.
Mattimoe, E. (1996). Private griefs public. America. V. 174, n 11 p. 8. 5. Sherer, M. (1997). When emotional distress leads to the courtroom: extreme behaviour by news media is rare.
News photographer. V. 52, n 3 p. 12 - 13
Free research essays on topics related to: news media, emotional impact, invasion of privacy, privacy, skull
Research essay sample on Invasion Of Privacy Emotional Impact
