When the news makes a horrible story worse

[sinklair]

A key part of ethical and responsible journalism is to “minimize harm”. I fail to understand why every so-called news organization in this market felt it necessary to report on the gruesome details of the death of Kevin Bacon.

Examples 1-4:

https://www.abc12.com/content/news/Kevi ... 61461.html

https://www.wnem.com/news/kevin-bacon-s ... 4e223.html

https://nbc25news.com/news/local/report ... evin-bacon

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2020/0 ... aying.html

We should report relevant details. But the level of detail reported in today’s stories was just aimed at getting more clicks on websites. There was no thought about how reporting some of these details might revictimize Kevin’s family and friends.

For reference, here is the SPJ Code: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

“Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

No wonder why viewers put us in the same category as lawyers and politicians.

[Realist]

I have to agree. After hearing some of the gruesome details yesterday, I really felt that I didn’t need to know them. It could have waited to come out at the trial...

[Herm]

I have to agree. After hearing some of the gruesome details yesterday, I really felt that I didn’t need to know them. It could have waited to come out at the trial...

Were you planning on going to the trial to hear these details?
If not, then what difference would it make if the details came out at the trial or if they are released before?

[sinklair]

Even if the details came out at court, I don’t think local news outlets should report some of the more gruesome details.

We decide every day how much information is needed for viewers to understand the story we are telling. We select how much detail we add and hence how much detail we leave out.

Some of the more sensational details of Kevin Bacon’s murder only serves the purpose of shocking the audience. It revictimizes the family and friends. It is unethical. And no one at these stations and newspapers talked about watering down the language in reports that might be shown in homes with children?

Come on! This is market 65, not 165. We deserve better!

[bobhuge]

A key part of ethical and responsible journalism is to “minimize harm”. I fail to understand why every so-called news organization in this market felt it necessary to report on the gruesome details of the death of Kevin Bacon.

Examples 1-4:

https://www.abc12.com/content/news/Kevi ... 61461.html

https://www.wnem.com/news/kevin-bacon-s ... 4e223.html

https://nbc25news.com/news/local/report ... evin-bacon

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2020/0 ... aying.html

We should report relevant details. But the level of detail reported in today’s stories was just aimed at getting more clicks on websites. There was no thought about how reporting some of these details might revictimize Kevin’s family and friends.

For reference, here is the SPJ Code: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

“Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

No wonder why viewers put us in the same category as lawyers and politicians.

YEP.

[Realist]

I have to agree. After hearing some of the gruesome details yesterday, I really felt that I didn’t need to know them. It could have waited to come out at the trial...

Were you planning on going to the trial to hear these details?
If not, then what difference would it make if the details came out at the trial or if they are released before?

My point is this would’ve came out at the trial. The media divulging this now, right after the murder, is pure sensationalism - and could affect the murderer having a fair trial with an impartial jury. This plays right into the old “if it bleeds, it leads” mantra....

[Herm]

A key part of ethical and responsible journalism is to “minimize harm”. I fail to understand why every so-called news organization in this market felt it necessary to report on the gruesome details of the death of Kevin Bacon.

Examples 1-4:

https://www.abc12.com/content/news/Kevi ... 61461.html

https://www.wnem.com/news/kevin-bacon-s ... 4e223.html

https://nbc25news.com/news/local/report ... evin-bacon

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2020/0 ... aying.html

We should report relevant details. But the level of detail reported in today’s stories was just aimed at getting more clicks on websites. There was no thought about how reporting some of these details might revictimize Kevin’s family and friends.

For reference, here is the SPJ Code: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

“Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

No wonder why viewers put us in the same category as lawyers and politicians.

This debate has been going on longer than you or I have been in this business and it will most likely continue right up to the point this business fades away into history.

A few counter points.
No one is forced to see these details and the people who are most sensitive to the situation are probably not seeking information from local news outlets.
This is still a business and if the competition is putting something out there that people are consuming then newsrooms have a choice... get on the train or be left at the station. It’s an ugly fact but it’s still a fact.

Personally... I always err on the side of less controversial and I I were a news director faced with this choice, I would NOT have listed the more gruesome details of this case.

[audiophile]

... A dude ran away from the house a month ago, bleeding from the head, wearing only a leather kilt! He had been chained in the basement and no charges came of it because they say it was consensual. Wow.

Bleeding from the head shouldn't be consensual. It's violence.

[MisterT]

lovinlife101 seems to know a lot about the gay lifestyle. He's on top any LGBT topic on this forum. You should change your username to LGBT101 since you seem to know more than anyone about this topic.

Gay crimes are not covered the same way straight crimes are. Period. Look it up on the google if you don't believe me.

Kevin Bacon was no exception and sadly our local news or whatever you want to call them these days has no problem sensationalizing this.