Download PDF - International Center for Journalists

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Journalism Ethics: The Global Debate watch the interview and after returning to the Kremlin, called to ask NTV not to broadcast the segment. So NTV held the tape until after the siege was over. Shuster was disappointed not to be able to air it earlier. He explained, “it was a scoop, an exclusive interview, but they asked us not to air it, so we didn’t.” Finally, the Kremlin complained about NTV broadcasting interviews with family members of the hostages. Shuster hosted the Friday evening talk show that included interviews with several relatives. He explained that part of his motivation in conducting these interviews was based on news events that occurred earlier that day. Chechen forces had encouraged relatives of the hostages to protest the war in Chechnya in Red Square on Friday. Shuster planned the evening show to include interviews with several of these relatives along with government officials. He expected an interesting debate about how a government should handle hostage situations and whether they can negotiate. However, minutes before airtime the government authorities who were scheduled to attend cancelled without explanation. It later became clear that they were involved in final plans to storm the theater early the next morning. NTV journalists discussed whether they should continue with the show since it was no longer as balanced. They decided to proceed, but Shuster acknowledges now that he might handle it differently if faced with the same scenario. He might not broadcast this type of show live, or he would explain that attendees on the other side of the debate had to cancel at the last minute. As he explained, “It was very emotional, which created an atmosphere of hostility toward the people that were advocating use of force.” An additional issue that concerned Shuster before broadcasting the show is the problem of using such emotional interview subjects. Although in the future he might consider taping this sort of show, Shuster still believes that these interviews are newsworthy—it is valuable to understand the perspective of the hostages’ relatives and for them to share stories and feelings that humanize the hostages. Overall, Shuster believes NTV’s coverage of the hostage crisis was fair and balanced, despite difficult reporting conditions. He also believes that the government did a reasonable job dealing with the press through the crisis. Although he would not characterize the relationship as “give and take,” he said, “Given the extraordinary circumstances, I cannot complain.” After the siege was over, though, the government multiplied efforts to curb reporting on terrorism. In November, both houses of parliament approved highly restrictive laws concerning how journalists can cover terrorist and counter-terrorist activities. Putin vetoed the legislation; however, shortly after, a committee of government officials and media executives convened to write a “voluntary” convention aimed at restricting media coverage of these issues. Directors of several national broadcast outlets signed the convention, and parliament is currently working on new legislation to curb reporting on terrorist operations. International Center for Journalists
Case Studies: Freedom and Responsibility Questions for Discussion 1. Was it ethical for NTV to hire a lip reader to interpret footage that the Kremlin press service sent to media outlets? Would it be ethical for a reporter to use information that he or she overhears during a conversation between public officials in the corridors of parliament? What about a conversation overheard from behind a closed door? What if a public official gives a newsworthy quote when he believes the microphone is off, when in fact he is being recorded? 2. How should a media organization decide what information affects the security of a military operation and therefore should not be broadcast or published? Is live footage always problematic? How long should a newspaper or broadcast station delay when going public with secure information? 3. Was it right for NTV to respect the government’s request to delay airing the interview with the hostage-taker? Would you have done the same? Should these types of decisions be made by the government or the media? 4. If your TV station were covering this story, and the lead hostagetaker offered you the chance to conduct a live interview with him, would you take it? What would you do if during the interview he shot a hostage on live TV? 5. Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the White House asked American broadcast stations not to air Osama bin Laden’s taped speeches for fear that they may include coded messages to his supporters. Most media outlets agreed to screen and possibly edit the tapes before airing them. What would you do in this scenario? 6. In December 1996, members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement stormed the Japanese Ambassador’s home in Lima, Peru, and took over 70 party guests hostage. The siege continued for over four months. Several media outlets discovered that government officials were building a tunnel into the residence, but refrained from publishing the information until after the hostage-takers admitted that they knew about the tunnel’s construction. La Republica then published the information gained from their investigative reporters. Peruvian President Fujimori still criticized the newspaper for endangering the operation. Was La Republica justified in publishing when they did? In a hostage crisis that spans months not days, how do the decisions over when and what to publish change? 7. Is it right to interview the relatives of hostages? American columnist George Will once called this practice “the pornography of grief.” Is it exploitative or simply thorough news gathering? Does it make a difference if relatives choose publicity by contacting news organizations unsolicited or by publicly protesting the government’s handling of the crisis? 8. Should Shuster have aired the show without the government 33
Page 1 and 2: Journalism Ethics The Global Debate
Page 3 and 4: Contents 5 Introduction 11 A Global
Page 5 and 6: Introduction Introduction Journalis
Page 7 and 8: Introduction constitutional governm
Page 9 and 10: Introduction
Page 11 and 12: Journalism Ethics Journalism Ethics
Page 13 and 14: Journalism Ethics the fewest prejud
Page 15 and 16: Journalism Ethics involves complex
Page 17 and 18: Newsroom Decision Making Newsroom D
Page 19 and 20: Newsroom Decision Making Together,
Page 21 and 22: Newsroom Decision Making The stakeh
Page 23 and 24: Newsroom Decision Making
Page 25 and 26: Case Studies: Freedom and Responsib
Page 31: Case Studies: Freedom and Responsib
Page 49 and 50: Case Studies: Accuracy and Fairness
Page 63 and 64: Case Studies:: Independence Case St
Page 65 and 66: Case Studies:: Independence 4. Shou
Page 67 and 68: Case Studies:: Independence Journal
Page 69 and 70: Case Studies:: Independence newsroo
Page 71 and 72: Case Studies:: Independence newspap
Page 73 and 74: Case Studies:: Independence pushed
Page 75 and 76: Case Studies:: Independence to make
Page 77 and 78: Case Studies:: Independence Saddam
Page 79 and 80: Case Studies:: Independence such as
Page 81 and 82: Final Notes While ethical discussio
Page 83 and 84:
Appendices • Avoid misleading ree
Page 85 and 86:
Appendices 85
Page 87 and 88:
Appendices Appendix C Ethics Resour
Page 89:
1616 H Street, 3rd Floor Washington
show all

Download PDF - International Center for Journalists

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?