While the airing was an honest mistake, according to Fox News, the subsequent distribution of the footage has created a divide in the journalism community. The issue: is it ethical to post a video of a live suicide because it is a legitimate news story, or is it a "sensationalization" of a sensitive subject? Slate staff writer Will Oremus explores both sides of the issue.
He cites Buzzfeed's decision to post an uncensored video of the suicide. The site then tweeted the link out to over 140,000 followers.
Buzzfeed was met with both backlash and praise for their decision. On the one end, it was insensitive, but on the other hand, Buzzfeed's role is to bring what people are talking about most to the forefront.
Where do you stand on the subject? Assuming Fox News truly made an error, and releasing them of blame, is it right for the footage to be circulating the web and for journalists to give the public access to a replay of a terrible moment of live television? Or is it their job as journalists to ensure their audience receives uncensored, untampered with news?
Oremus found Buzzfeed's decision insensitive, but other staff writers for Slate disagree. This issue truly comes down to personal ethics.
Personally, after viewing the disturbing footage, I certainly wish I hadn't been exposed to it. Suicide is so overly sensationalized in popular culture today, and I fear that perhaps the live airing of it only added to the issue. I do stand behind Smith's assurance that it was an accident. Surely I don't think any network would intentionally let such a thing happen. I do understand the question of journalistic ethics here, and that the founders of the United States fought to have uncensored news. I think Buzzfeed could have still presented the story without showing the full video clip.
See Shepard Smith's apology right after the suicide aired. Here he explains the delay Fox News created in order to keep something like this from airing, but they were unable to cut away in time. This raises more questions of ethics. Was Fox News right to try to censor the material in the first place? Smith clearly thinks so.
Buzzfeed was met with both backlash and praise for their decision. On the one end, it was insensitive, but on the other hand, Buzzfeed's role is to bring what people are talking about most to the forefront.
Where do you stand on the subject? Assuming Fox News truly made an error, and releasing them of blame, is it right for the footage to be circulating the web and for journalists to give the public access to a replay of a terrible moment of live television? Or is it their job as journalists to ensure their audience receives uncensored, untampered with news?
Oremus found Buzzfeed's decision insensitive, but other staff writers for Slate disagree. This issue truly comes down to personal ethics.
Personally, after viewing the disturbing footage, I certainly wish I hadn't been exposed to it. Suicide is so overly sensationalized in popular culture today, and I fear that perhaps the live airing of it only added to the issue. I do stand behind Smith's assurance that it was an accident. Surely I don't think any network would intentionally let such a thing happen. I do understand the question of journalistic ethics here, and that the founders of the United States fought to have uncensored news. I think Buzzfeed could have still presented the story without showing the full video clip.
See Shepard Smith's apology right after the suicide aired. Here he explains the delay Fox News created in order to keep something like this from airing, but they were unable to cut away in time. This raises more questions of ethics. Was Fox News right to try to censor the material in the first place? Smith clearly thinks so.
No comments:
Post a Comment