Have we just become voyeurs of the world around us, wanting to watch and see but not to ‘interfere’?
A recent article by journalist Jill McGivering on the BBC News website has really given me pause to think about our seemingly insatiable desire for ‘news’.
We all question from time to time the news-worthiness of the latest celebrity fender-bender. It’s moments like that which make us wonder if maybe our thirst for something new to whet this appetite is a little too great and is resulting in ‘news’ being created when there’s nothing of worth to report.
Today though, I was stuck with a deeper ethical and moral question, the question which Ms. McGivering posed in her article: When should a journalist step in and help?
Detachment
One of the primary rules of journalism is detachment.
If you and I want to know what’s going on in a war-torn country, a city over-run with rioters or even a disaster area, the reporters need to be able to detach themselves from the situation, to stand aside and report, hopefully with as little bias as possible, what they are seeing.
If we want to know about the scale of an issue, it would not help for a reporter to focus their time and attention on one small portion of it because without stepping back and looking at the big picture, they cannot see more than what is right in front of them.
If we want to know exactly what is happening in a battle-ravaged city, the reporters must be impartial observers able to, to some degree, stand back and watch, and not get involved. As soon as they pick up a weapon, they become targets and their neutrality and the fragile protection that provides is lost. But herein lies the ethical dilemma.
Dilemma
A sense of observational neutrality, of simply being a fly-on-the-wall is necessary, but on a moral level, is it right?
McGivering was reporting on the flooding in Pakistan and her attention was drawn to a young woman who had just given birth on the side of the road while fleeing the rising flood-waters.
The baby was tiny, frail and virtually lifeless. The caring, human side of Ms. McGivering compelled her to bring the baby’s plight to the attention of a doctor at a nearby emergency clinic – and the doctor promised to do what he could to help.
The baby survived and as the story winged its way around the world, offers of assistance came pouring in.
Ms. McGivering felt both “elation and unease” at what had transpired. Elation that she had made a difference, but unease that she had ‘interfered’.
By bringing the child to the doctor’s attention, had she robbed someone else of the lifesaving medical attention they needed? By saving that child’s life, had she broken down the wall of detachment and become part of the problem rather than a neutral observer and reporter of it? Was it right for her to single out that one child for publicity and aid?
Are We Voyeurs?
As I read and pondered all of this, I had to wonder, have we become such voyeurs of trouble and disaster, such news-hungry animals that we have forgotten that the people who are being reported on are exactly that: people, human beings who need help, people who God commands us to love “as ourselves”?
Yes, we need to know about disasters and the like so that we know where our help is needed and yes, there has to be some journalistic detachment for us to be able to get that information but where is the line between ‘needing to know’ and voyeuristic gluttony?
Do we need reporters from thirty different news agencies all standing back and watching as people suffer and die or should one report while the other twenty nine help?
No Easy Answers
These are questions with no easy answers, but I have to ask myself, if I was a reporter here in America and I was the only witness to a terrible car crash, would I do nothing but stand by and write a report for my newspaper about the accident and how no help came because there was no-one to call 911?
Of course I wouldn’t – and people would be outraged if I did.
So what’s the difference in Pakistan, or Haiti, or Afghanistan or the myriad other places where reporters are maintaining a journalistic detachment from the needs in front of them?
Where Does The Blame Lie?
Is it we, the consumers, who are to blame? Do we, by our never-ending thirst for information, push people into making what may be the wrong moral and ethical decisions?
Do we simply demand too much information before we will be stirred into action? Do we demand too much information even though we have no desire to help? Or does the volume of information that we are being bombarded with desensitize us to the human need in the story?
I, for one, know that I clamour to know more. I’m a news-junkie yet I rarely do more than gawk at the misfortune of others. I am part of this society’s obsession with information and also of its apathy and self-centeredness.
Maybe I am to blame? Maybe you are too?
What are your thoughts on these difficult questions?
When a journalist ‘can’ help, ‘should’ they help?
I attended a session at the Echo conference where photographer Esther Havens talked about how she would go to 3rd world countries and take pictures of people at their worst–kids with flies all over them, starving and sad. She became convicted about this practice, and now shoots people in a good light–children smiling, asking her subjects how THEY would like to be captured in the photos. She gives them dignity.
One story she shared really struck me. There is a Pulitzer prize winning photograph of a vulture standing next to a starving child. The photographer took the shot, but did not help the child. That photographer took his own life. Tragedy does and SHOULD affect us.
This is the photo: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/1016152029_42…
I think Esther Havens has the right idea.
Show people as human beings.
I would then throw in the occasional one of the flies etc so people can really appreciate that these are people just like them who are suffering terribly.
Great response, KD
This is a tremendous challenge. Yes, our culture wants to know, and yes we are absolutely desensitized by our consumption of news, but I think in all situations where the need is overwhelming it is vital to remember how Jesus lived. He didn't go into a city and raise His hands over it, thereby healing every suffering resident. No, he always dealt with individuals. Our culture wants us to believe we shouldn't bother unless we can solve problems on a grand scale. But God's message is clear that we are each made in His image and any attention or help to the very least is right and God honoring. Not sure that leaves any room for journalist detachment.
And Katdish, thanks for sharing that picture and vignette. Very powerful, indeed.
Absolutely, Kristie.
We don't place enough value on individual lives.
We all want to do something 'big' but forget that the 'small' things can have a HUGE impact!
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Kristie!
Very interesting thoughts and discussion, Peter. I can't really speak from the journalistic side, but I can say that it's easy to get desensitized to all of it. I begin to see 'just another picture' or read 'just another story' instead of remembering there is a real person or people in need. It has to be personal to us like it is to our Father.
Anyway, thanks for provoking some discussion today…
Thanks, Jason.
I think everyone should visit a third world country or a disaster are just so they can get some appreciation of the reality that we are all becoming desensitized to!
Excellent, thought-provoking post, Peter.
I know enough journalists to say that only the most crass walk away as if they only are doing a job. A certain amount of detachment is required, not just for objective reporting but for safety and security. While we may not hear of them, the stories of journalists' behind-the-scenes work to assist a person in need are many. TED has highlighted more than a few.
What you describe, of course, applies to each of us, too, every time we pass a person experiencing homeless and refuse to engage with the eyes or to offer a hello, as if the individual is not human.
It is my deepest hope that our ability to empathize never be lost.
Thanks, Maureen.
I have heard stories of Journalists helping others too.
What really struck me here was that the journalist was questioning whether or not she was right to help.
How can our society have come to the point where someone with the means and ability can even question whether or not it is RIGHT to help a young mother who has given birth on the side of the road while fleeing from a natural disaster.
It seems like a no-brainer to me!
Great thoughts to ponder Peter! We just had a flood in our city this weekend and some of these thoughts were on my mind as the media was rushing to get the story out but no one was rushing to help anyone.
EXACTLY!
It always amazes me that somehow journalists manage to get into disaster areas before rescue workers seem able to!
I don't see why she could possibly be wrong to help. So long as she is objective and "detached" when presenting the story, I don't see what harm could be done by doing some act of service when not in front of a camera.
I'm with you completely, Helen/
I have no idea why she would feel conflicted about other than that we've created this monster called journalism which seems to have it's own morals quite separate from normal morals.
Thanks for chiming in!
I don't understand the dilemma either. Since when does journalism exempt you from the human race and thus from the responsibility to lend a hand? Our consciences have surely been seared.
EXACTLY!
Thanks for chiming in!
I would love to be a photo journalist and in situations such as you described I would not be able to stand by and do nothing. I think being objective as a reporter is important but the welfare of others trumps any neutrality one needs when repoting a story.
And Peter, great post.
Awww, thanks, Annie