Morality choice for a Journalist

Timotheus · Post by **Timotheus** » 2008-09-04 12:34pm

Simple question. If a journalist covering an event realizes that their coverage is causing the event to spin further and further out of control are they morally obligated to turn off their cameras and leave?

Example to make it clearer.

Journalist and cameraman is following peaceful protestors. A small portion break off and start to break windows, slash tires, overturn cars, etc.

As time passes the acts get more and more violent and destructive. The journalist even realizes that the worst acts are always happening in front of the camera because the crowd is feeding off the camera and knowing they are being recorded.

Should the journalist and cameraman turn off their gear and leave?

Lets say they do not turn off or leave.

Now more time passes and a car that tries to get through the mob is stopped. The driver (you me, anyone really) is not thinking straight and honks at the crowd of people blocking his path.

This offends said mob and several of the most violent smash his window, yank him out and commence to beat the hell out of him, all on camera of course.

Can the journalist be sued by the man or charged with a crime?

What if later on viewing the tape the journalist and cameraman are heard talking to each other? What if it becomes apart that they know the crowd is feeding off them but they don't care because covering this is going to "make their career".

With this bit of audio/video evidence now should the two of them be charged in addition to the crowd that commited the crime?

Or quite simply does being a journalist take this all away as freedom of the press?

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-04 01:23pm

Journalists are there to document.

I think it would be difficult to prove that the act of documenting a riot, significantly worsens the behavior of the rioters.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-04 01:23pm

ghetto edit -

even if the journalists themselves may believe it.

Timotheus · Post by **Timotheus** » 2008-09-04 01:31pm

So the next step would be to do a study comparing events where a journalist was there and was not there.

If there is no connection then the journalist is fine. If the study shows that more property is damaged or more people are hurt then one can stary to suspect that people are feeding off the crime.

What does one do then? It could potentially really crimp journalism. Assuming you consider following a bunch of rioters around destroying stuff as real journalism.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2008-09-04 01:46pm

You can play the neutral observer card, but then say in a combat zone and a journalist is in the thick of it and perhaps gets shot. Do the soldiers that represent, perhaps, the nation the journalist is from have a duty to go get him, endangering soldiers lives for a neutral observer?

Timotheus · Post by **Timotheus** » 2008-09-04 01:51pm

Knife wrote:You can play the neutral observer card, but then say in a combat zone and a journalist is in the thick of it and perhaps gets shot. Do the soldiers that represent, perhaps, the nation the journalist is from have a duty to go get him, endangering soldiers lives for a neutral observer?

I would make it the choice of the soldiers. If they decided to risk it and save the reporter that is fine. If they felt that doing so would only endanger more of them and felt that the reporter would have to sit it out then I would not fault them for that either.

The question really comes down to should the soldiers put as much effort into rescuing the reporter as they would a fellow soldier.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2008-09-04 03:29pm

Unfortunately, these things are rarely left up to the soldiers. And even if a reporter wants to be neutral, they rarely are. Even if they can consider themselves a neutral force, will the American public, and will America's enemies?

Reporters don't have a responsibility to do anything but document and report, but if they're altering or becoming the story, they've overstepped themselves and should think long and hard about the role they're having in things. Like Geraldo giving away troop positions, a reporter whose filming is feeding a crowd on their rampant acts has a human responsibility to other people that transcends their day job. You aren't a reporter first and a decent person second. If your presence is lending fire to the flames, you're partially responsible.

How much is that B-Roll worth? Do you really need to shoot another hour of film just so you can edit it down to 10 seconds of kids throwing bricks through windows? You could shoot shots of the city, of the wreckage after they've moved on, and so forth. Unless being right in there with the riot as it happens is really helping you gather information on something amazing, how much is it worth? This isn't to squelch free speech, but there should be a smell test.

I doubt most people would be in favor of a documentary filmmaker following a serial murderer around and interviewing him as he goes on a spree as the police track him down. A riot can be very dangerous, and in the OP, a person gets badly hurt because the mob--fired up--turns on an innocent guy. At that point though, the reporter can't really do anything, but it would be great if he could try to personally intervene on behalf of the guy. Filming a beating should not be more important than saving a guy from a beating.

But are they legally obligated? Eeeh. I don't think you can say they are. First of all, journalists are often in dangerous situations--if you forced them to help out anytime there was a fire, or a shooting, or a robbery, you'd quickly end up with a lot of amateur heroes fucking everything up, a lot of dead reporters, or simply very little journalism. I think they have an ethical responsibility to make sure all they're doing is reporting, not creating a story by stirring up a crowd or giving validity to a madman, or something similar. But I doubt that ethical responsibilty extends to a legal one in anything but the most extreme situations (some of which I've mentioned). Property damage is terrible, and these are businesses getting ruined, but I'm not sure there is a LEGAL responsibility to walk away or leave. I don't think an average citizen would be guilty by association with rioters, and reporters wouldn't either.

Could someone with an understanding of the law explain how you would prosecute someone for a crime if their mere presence aided a riot, but they took no action to aid anyone? What if their very presence supported the rioters, but they were actually telling people to settle down? I'm not sure there's a crime there.

You certainly shouldn't film a man drown to death if you could just help him, but you've got no legal responsibility leap into a frozen lake, and I doubt the fire department would want you to either.

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2008-09-05 06:30am

I've been a camera man myself on some occasions involving huge crowds of people. I also talked to people who were filming some more violent protests (like the miners strikes in Warsaw) and they said that cameras had no effect on what was happening.

I noticed that IF anything, the cameras tend to cool down people's heads. Usually, those brick throwing bastards KNOW that what they are doing is wrong. When they see a camera pointed at them they will think twice before doing something stupid, because, ultimately, everyone in the country will be able to see their faces.

Of course, my experience is only drawn upon some union workers strikes, which never really gotten that hairy to the point of actually beating someone up (although bricks and firecrackers were flying high). I have never been to a war zone or seen any kind of political/religious uprising (and hopefully never will) so I can't really say what is happening there.

As for the moral side of your scenario, it is going to be brutal, but both journalist and cameraman are there to earn MONEY. That's their job - if they don't do it properly they will get fired (and believe me, it is very easy to get fired from a TV station if you screw up intentionally).

Having said that, there is a set of rules that polish journalists should follow in crisis situations. One of the points (the second one) is that if the presence of reporters, cameras, microphones, lightning, influences the crowd's behaviour, then journalists should pack up and leave.

Also, it is not a good practice to show a live feed from crisis situations (like strikes), because without a good understanding of the situation, what you say to the viewers or listeners can easily be biased.

In case of a hostage situation, journalists are obliged to pack up and leave and even resign from informing about the situation if hostages lives are threatened that way.

So, the answer to your question, based on the experiences of professional journalists, is that yes, if your presence affects the crowd, then leave.

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2008-09-05 06:41am

Kanastrous wrote:Journalists are there to document.

I think it would be difficult to prove that the act of documenting a riot, significantly worsens the behavior of the rioters.

The idea of some religious muslim fundies showing off to a camera and firing their guns in the air is not that difficult to imagine.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-05 10:50am

I think for the most part you are describing parts of the world where people fire off their guns in the air to celebrate weddings, commemorate births, mourn at funerals, assert their manliness and praise their deity.

Rounds let fly for the camera, are probably a very tiny proportion of the total.