Compassion over clicks: Journalists shouldn’t prioritize fast news over ethics

BY THE LARIAT STAFF

News is supposed to benefit the public, not cause harm to those who read it. 

On January 26, early Sunday afternoon, tabloid news organization TMZ broke the news of a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California. Not much later, it was reported that retired NBA star Kobe Bryant was among those aboard during the crash and unfortunately passed away. 

On Twitter, news outlets spiraled into a frenzy. Many had incorrectly reported that all of Bryant’s four daughters were aboard the helicopter with him. It was also reported that 13-year-old Gianna Bryant had passed during the crash before any confirmation was given. 

TMZ was the first major outlet to report Gianna’s passing. Despite getting this fact correct, TMZ reported the news before the LAPD had notified the Bryants’ family, and caused a lot of misinformation to spread due to their initial report.

News is supposed to benefit the public, not cause harm to those who read it. 

Good journalists pursue the truth. But along with a need to get the truth out to the world comes the responsibility of accuracy, morality and standards. TMZ’s release of sensitive information in response to the tragic death of athlete Kobe Bryant is just one example of the media grotesquely prioritizing fast news over journalistic ethics.

For example, during the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School nearly two years ago, some reporters took to social media to contact MSD students about the shooting, not even 24 hours after the tragedy had unfolded. Before even allowing them to process their grief, journalists were in the Instagram comments and Twitter replies of MSD students asking them to comment on the situation. This is inherently unethical.

There is nothing wrong with breaking a story as quickly as possible, but problems start to arise when journalists begin to misreport, release unauthorized information or overstep the boundaries of someone close to the story. To be clear, the fact that a quick news report was written is not the problem in the Bryant situation, but the fact that it was released containing information that was inaccurate to the public and harmful to the families involved is a problem. 

People argue that this information is allowed to be read by the general public as long as the families involved are aware of the true situation. Meaning, the reports in question shouldn’t cause much harm. However, this is not true. Sometimes information will not be given to these families, in cases such as the next of kin not being identified or if the medical examiner has not officially released a statement. 

Good journalists pursue the truth. But along with a need to get the truth out to the world comes the responsibility of accuracy, morality and standards.

In these cases, many families will be actively watching the news to find out what has happened to their loved ones. Giving incorrect information to those who are watching or reading can give false hope, or lead to dismay depending on what had occurred. 

No one should be notified of the passing of their loved ones via social media. Journalists must take into account how the news that they are breaking will affect others, which in this case are the families of Bryant and the others who passed away. It is not only irresponsible to not have the facts correct before reporting on such a sensitive issue to the general public, but also disrespectful to the families of the victims involved.

Photo courtesy of NBC Los Angeles