PressEthic

Sunday, a New Zealand current affairs show, is running a documentary Aerosol Terrorists, on graffiti artists. Graffiti art is illegal. In the documentary, journalists go with the graffiti artists to film them. Are these journalists complicit in a criminal act?

By setting up this documentary with the graffiti artists, the documentary makers are tacitly supporting the actions of the graffiti artists and benefiting from them. You might argue that this is no different to what the news does every night. However the key difference is that the documentary makers are almost cohorts with the law breakers. The journalists and graffiti artists have planned for this event to happen. The documentary makers are no longer simply reporting on what has occured, they are involved in making the news happen. In this instant this is particularly unethical because the planned event is a criminal activity. The documentary has almost encouraged the graffiti artists to go and commit a crime for the benefit of ratings.

I realize that in the case of graffiti, the artists would have committed the act regardless of the media’s presence. But the ethical question still remains if it is right to know about a crime before it is committed and then film it, in order to benefit. However there are also situations where through their very presence, the media actually facilitate news events.

Imagine a situation where a disgruntled worker called a television station and said he was going to set himself a light in protest of working conditions. The television then station showed up and filmed the man. By their very presence the television station facilitated the man’s protest and his subsequent demise (Note - example based on a true story). If the television station did not film this protest then it could be argued the man would not have committed the act, because it would have been less effective.

The ethical problem comes, when the media know about a criminal activity/or an activity that will bring harm and conspire to cover it, when they had the power to stop it. In the case of the disgruntled worker the media should have a) not shown and b) told the authorities about this man’s intention. This story only became news because the media allowed it to become news.

Perhaps the rule of thumb here is that the media should aspire to act like a rational human being. Presumably in the case of the disgruntled worker most people would have attempted to stop the man. Unfortunately the media’s ethical position can easily be subverted by the desire for a scoop and ratings.