Common sense must prevail

From its inception, the print media has been challenged on its decision to publish sensitive, provocative and even offensive material, based on a rationale that it has a duty to inform the public. With the advent of radio, television and now Internet, this debate resurfaces frequently when it appears that publishers in these mediums have overstepped the lines of decency in society.

For instance, R. Umar Abbasi, a freelance photographer for the tabloid New York Post, came under heavy criticism recently for shooting a series of pictures of a man who was thrown onto the tracks of a US subway station, as he tried to pull himself out of the path of an oncoming train. The man failed and was killed. One of Abbasi’s photographs appeared on the front page of the paper under the headline “DOOMED”. In the face of the uproar caused by its publication, Abbasi claims he used the flash from the camera to alert the driver of the train and that the decision to use the image was not his doing. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it was published and millions of people will be able to access that image for years to come.

Also in the headlines were DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian from an Australian radio show, who played a prank live on air by calling the hospital where the Duchess of Cambrige was staying and getting an update on her condition by pretending to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles. The prank overstepped the boundaries of decorum and was considered by many unacceptable and even a possible security risk. The discovery of the death of the nurse on the receiving end of the prank has added a darker dimension to this tale. The two DJs have since apologised.

In both of these cases, information was placed in the public domain based on the personal opinion of a few who deemed it suitable for public consumption. In the news business, these types of decisions are made daily, but some level of judgement must be used to filter what is published. It is true that the media has a duty to inform the public, but common sense must prevail.

Still, this issue is not as simple as judging media based on its publications. One must also decide whose standards are being used to decide what is fit for publication. If a public figure is photographed in an extra-marital liaison, it would be no surprise when that person lambastes the media for invasion of privacy. Yet, if that person has built a public reputation on being morally upright, doesn’t the public have a right to know?

Furthermore, if societal norms are to be used as a standard by which news material is to be measured, then one must acknowledge that societies’ values change with each generation. What is considered acceptable now would not have been accepted before. In many cases, the media have even had a hand in shaping society’s outlook.

In the final analysis, there are no clear cut answers to what should be published and what should be withheld. Each news organisation, group and individual who publishes information to the public must depend on their moral compass and established views of society to make their decision.