Responsible reporting

THERE are many arguments put forth regarding the information and images distributed via media and whether they should be filtered before they reach audiences. This issue resurfaced recently with the bombing at the Boston Marathon in the United States and the subsequent media coverage of the event and the hunt for the suspects. As debate raged, one thing became evident – there are no clear guidelines when operating in the arena of public opinion and even if a given point-of-view coincides with the masses, there will undoubtedly be objection by some.

The decision, for instance, to publish several gruesome photographs on the covers of newspapers and magazines showing the graphic injuries of innocent bystanders came under fire as being tasteless and morbid. Yet, when editors at The New York Daily News took it upon themselves to alter a front page image to reduce the shock potential, their moves were criticised and the publication accused of manipulating material. Likewise, purported photographs of slain suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, which were leaked online and distributed via social media websites, were met with much less disapproval despite their graphic content.

In addition, though it was crucial to keep the public updated on the events as they unfolded, some of the information in reports on the bombing suspects published was sensitive and could have interfered with investigations. It also put innocent lives at risk by implicating persons who were not involved – for instance, The New York Post was criticised for raising suspicion that two men pictured on their front page with the headline “Bag Men” were wanted by the Feds in connection with the deadly attack.

There is, however, another perspective through which this issue should be analysed. Concern should not only stop at how affected audiences are with what they hear, read and see, but also what effect these media messages cause in their viewers.

It has long been argued that media have the power to influence an individual’s behaviour. Media theories like the “hypodermic needle theory” imply that mass media have a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its audiences. In the past, this paper has acknowledged this probability
while pointing to another major influence – that of socialisation – on the behaviour of people who demonstrate violent tendencies. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that media can and do have an undue influence in some people’s lives, especially those who have underlying antisocial and/or
psychological problems.

Based purely on observation, one can see an obvious increase in recent times in the number of mass murders committed in the US, where a single gunman injures or kills several with a weapon. These killings usually follow a similar scenario and, as information is relayed about the incident in question, one cannot help but wonder if the next perpetrator is taking notes. Likewise, bombing suspects, kidnappers, and most other high profile crimes inevitably end up being the mastermind of a criminal who concocted a plan from information gathered online and from other news sources.

Therefore, media organisations need to be more responsible in gathering and disseminating the news. As mentioned before, there will probably never be consensus about the suitability of news content, however these types of debates are healthy in any society as we seek to settle on acceptable norms and standards by which to operate.