The Ethics of Covering Attacks in Times of War and Conflict
End of Term Paper
When the power of media lies in it being an integrated constituent of society and a vivid rendition of reality, it becomes a double-edged sword and an information source that can manipulate and mold public opinion by either maintaining peace and neutrality or stirring tension and disputes. Peleg (2006) explains one communication theory that entails the basics of peace journalism as media outlets being a third party which facilitates an open space for discussion between conflicting or opposing fractions, in order to allow for a peaceful dialogue by being peace and people oriented and shedding light on stories of human suffering. This would be the situation in an ideal world; however, a lot of journalistic ethics are compromised for the sake of getting the first scoop regardless of what its repercussions may be, as a result, this is what this paper aims to discuss in reference to the reportage of attacks in breaking news based on examples from the coverage of Arab media to the Israeli aggressions on the Palestinians.
Below is one of the hundreds of thousands of examples that report and document the violence of the Israeli occupation forces against the Palestinians. However, this is not the purpose of discussion of this paper, it is rather to examine a number of journalistic ethics that were overlooked to produce this report. The story of the 22-year-old Palestinian martyr, Lafi Awad, who was murdered in cold blood by Israeli soldiers during a peaceful demonstration in the Palestinian village of Budrus near Ramallah, was covered by various media outlets and reporters, but the chosen example is by the Jordanian private owned Television station, Ro’ya. The report which was filmed the day of his death and aired during the evening news broadcast of the same day includes footage of the martyr, his funeral, and his parents, sister, and brother saying their last goodbye to him, as well as a short interview with his sister who expresses her grief over her martyred brother.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of such reports is to account for war crimes and human rights’ violations committed by the Israeli occupation forces against the people of Palestine. Although this report in particular succeeds in covering almost all aspects of the event by shedding light on an essential case of human suffering while dealing with its mere facts like details about the martyr and the way in which he was killed, it still approaches the situation from a very personal and emotional perspective which puts the credibility of the reporter at a thin line between what she considers personal and what is considered professional, regardless of the fact that she is reporting on the truth. The question in similar situations is:
To what extent is it acceptable for news correspondents and media outlets to compromise some of the fundamental journalistic ethics in order to deliver their intended message?
It is indisputable that this reporter is exposing a war crime; nonetheless, her partiality is palpably expressed through the phrases she uses in a sensationalized manner that overlooks the tragedy and depicts it dramatically. Her failure to detach her personal feelings from the piece of news, although understandable, yet threatens her credibility, professionalism, and objectivity as a news reporter and a war correspondent. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics states that journalists must “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived; and remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” If the correspondent were to follow the above statement and preserve an absolutely objective position, she would have possibly refrained from covering the whole event and endured silence over this criminal act instead of pursuing what is in her job and her duty as a war correspondent.
Theoretically speaking, an objective journalist is one who only presents facts without slanting or commenting on them, maintains a calm detached tone, “presents both sides of any contentious story, assumes moral neutrality, and relies heavily on quotes, particularly those from official sources” describes Hamad, (2014). For the aim is that the audience receives plain facts and retains the freedom to take their own decision regardless where they want to stand, unhindered by the reporter’s personal biases.
Practically, objectivity is not ideally possible in skewed conflicts like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Being objective and treating the two sides equally cannot be accomplished when only one side is militarily equipped while the other side suffers from devastating causalities. Detaching one’s self from the reality of the horrors committed by the Israeli occupation and assuming equality between the two sides is not objectivity, it is rather eliminating the human emotion and hiding the whole truth. Therefore, reinforcing the status quo is not always the best option. It definitely is not the ethical choice to make when it means siding with the more powerful party, or demanding journalists and reporters to adopt a morally neutral attitude in situations that require conscientious opposition and objection. Subsequently, it is justified for this reporter to show her compassion towards the subject of this story of human suffering, and it is reasonable and acceptable for the audience to receive information from her as a credible and a well-informed source who has years of experience as a war correspondent.
Moving on to the second point, watching this report one can see a number of people holding their cameras (probably correspondents working for different news channels) trying to make their way through in order to get footage of the martyr and his devastated family. As I know from personal experience as an intern at Al Jazira TV and Ro’ya TV offices in Palestine, at the occurrence of such events when I used to accompany the correspondents while filming similar stories, families of the martyrs usually try to prevent media access to footage of the martyr and of his grieving family. However, as I have seen happening, cameramen push one another and race each other to get the first and the better shot. It is only logical to ask:
Is it ethical to ignore the family’s desire of not being filmed for the sake of getting the scoop?
Article 26 of the Copyright Law stipulates that: “Whoever makes any picture shall not have the right to display the original of that picture or publish, distribute, or display it without the permission of the person whom it represents.” In other words, it specifies that pictures that entail undermining a person’s honor, dignity, self-esteem, reputation or social standing must not be published at any condition.
Similarly, even without a law, it is acknowledged that dead people are inviolable and have a divine privacy that may not be violated. Human values are not accustomed or even prevent being exposed to a dead person whether martyred or not, unless in a certain context or within set limits. However, Khalid Al Qudah, a beat journalist specialized in issues of human rights, argues that photos of martyrs are considered on a case-by-case basis whereby if the dignity and respect of the dead person and their family are sustained, and features of their face or body are hidden, then ultimately there should not be any debate over the right of publishing such photos or videos.
Conventionally, ethics should be given precedence over the rule of law; nonetheless, it eventually depends on the reporter’s personal goal behind the work being produced.
Some people seek fame through footage like this to grow their reputation and increase audience rating. Similar behavior can be condoned or vindicated under the Hedonism ethical theory, which supports the pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence as the highest good and proper aim of human life. In other words, if acquiring and publishing footage of martyrs grants them the first scoop or the fame they angle for, it is ethically acceptable.
On the other hand, more ethical journalists whose drive is to voice the human suffering of people living under oppression with no greed for other personal benefits, their roles tend to be more reserved and considerate. Accordingly, their concerns can be accommodated following the Veil of Ignorance ethical theory which suggests that when people (journalists in this case) place themselves in the position of others, they abandon or alter some of their decisions and behaviors, and the decision differs from one person to another based on their own sets of values and beliefs, as well as previous experience. Here, reporters need to make an immediate yet an informed decision between the public’s right to know and their duty as reporters to deliver the message of their people, or the subjects’ right to privacy and the victims right to their dignity and respect of their willingness to not be depicted in an exposed or vulnerable state.
The above picture is of a Palestinian man looking at the body of a young boy killed in an Israeli air strike at a morgue in Al Shefa hospital in Gaza City, on July 9, 2014.
Pictures like this one regularly fuel never-ending debates on graphic imagery and ethics. Many questions arise concerning the repercussions of publishing not only ethically, but also taking into consideration the effect it would have on the audience.
To publish or not to publish? Stuck between the morals and the graphics..
Some argue that in the coverage of dead people and graphic images, the photographer or reporter has to convey the general atmosphere of the picture without necessarily having to include graphic details as they would not add any advantage to the reporter or photographer. Subsequently, graphically shocking pictures or footage can be compromised if there are other options that convey the same message and story in a less damaging and intrusive manner, as described in the Golden Mean ethical theory.
In this case, the below picture would be a suitable supplant within the mediated boundaries.
This photo, taken in July 15 2014 during the Israeli war on Gaza, is of a 20-centimeter fragment of an Israeli missile extracted from the body of a 15-year-old girl. This photo does tell a story, and it does carry a very powerful message without showing any bloodshed or images of dead bodies. Photos intent to reflect the truth about what is happening, to show the reality of life, and equally death, in the war-torn Palestinian land and Gaza city in specific as this example shows. Nonetheless, what many journalists try to do is to convey as much information possible in as little graphic imagery as possible in order to avoid hurting the audience, shaking them or shocking them. However, if someone does not see something it does not mean it did not happen. Should journalists abstain from publishing photos/videos just to minimize the psychological harm that might be inflicted upon the audience when viewing images of other people’s daily lives and suffering? Referring to the Utilitarianism philosophy which indicates that overlooking the needs of the minorities must be done if it ensures the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This theory supports the publishing of the exemplified photos, and others in similar situations, if it benefits the bigger society and aims to expose the truth behind the Israeli occupation and promote justice for the people of Palestine, even if it involves inconsideration of the subjects’ desire and the audiences’ response.
Based on the above evaluation of the key benefits and harms of each ethical dilemma and how it can be approached, it is safe to conclude that compromising some of the principal journalistic values, in essence, can be justified or rather more reasonable in cases where it aids the greater purpose of journalism which is to present facts and expose the truth. Although reportage of events, breaking news, or attacks in times of conflicts and in war torn countries like Palestine is an impressionable matter where the balance of power is with the oppressor, maintaining neutrality and insensitivity, and refraining from publishing the whole truth is considered unethical because it does not convey an accurate representation or depiction of reality the way journalists should.
References:
Bersak, Daniel. (2006). Ethics In photojournalism: Past, present, and future. Department of Comparative Media Studies.
Hamad, R. (2014 , August 22). Gaza and the limits of ‘objective’ reporting. Overland. Retrieved from https://overland.org.au/2014/08/gaza-and-the-limits-of-objective-reporting/
Peleg, S. (2006). Peace Journalism through the Lens of Conflict Theory: Analysis and Practice. (2nd ed., Vol. 5). Berlin: Regener Publishing House.
Tooth, R. (2014, July 23). Graphic content: When photographs of carnage are too upsetting to publish. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/graphic-content-photographs-too-upsetting-to-publish-gaza-mh17-ukraine
Ziadat, A. (2017, May 28). Publishing photos of martyrs and dead persons, invasion of privacy and violation of ethics of profession. Akeed. Retrieved from https://www.akeed.jo/index.php?option=com_mqal&view=item&id=525&Itemid=139&lang=en
McGrath, T. (2014, August 7). These are the images from Gaza that are too graphic for many US news outlets to publish. Public Radio International. https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-07-09/these-are-images-gaza-are-too-graphic-many-us-news-outlets-publish-day-31
