You are a local newspaper reporter sent out to doorstep a bereaved family but you lie to your news editor because you are reluctant to intrude on their grief.
The news of a bomb blast at an overseas army barracks sent shockwaves through a small town where five of the soldiers lived. One of died.
A reporter, working for the local newspaper, was sent out to knock on the door of the soldier who was killed. This is called ‘doorstepping’ in newsgathering.
The newspaper’s news editor, driven by the need for a compelling local angle, wanted a photograph of the soldier and quotes from his grieving family.
The reporter arrived at the family home to find the curtains closed. Residents in neighbouring houses had also closed their curtains in a communal show of sympathy and respect.
As the reporter knocked on the door he heard whispering inside. He knocked again, the whispering stopped. All was still. It was clear the family was inside, but it was also clear that family members didn’t want to answer the door.
The reporter called the news editor to explain the situation. The response was firm: “Keep trying, we need a photograph and a quote”.
The reporter was told to “stay there until you get something”. Although he understood the news value of persisting he also felt uncomfortable intruding on a family in mourning.
Driven by the news editor’s instructions the reporter went back to the house. As he arrived a woman at the house next door stopped him and pleaded that he leave the family alone “they’ve suffered enough”, he was told.
The reporter was caught in a painful ethical bind:
- The pressure to perform: He didn’t want to let his news editor down and was afraid that if he didn’t get a photo and a quote another reporter would and he would be seen to have failed at his job.
- The moral imperative: He recognised the profound grief of the family and the inherent violation of their privacy and didn’t want to intrude.
- Afraid of confrontation: He didn’t want an unpleasant confrontation with family members.
Faced with this conflict, the reporter made a compromise. He called the news editor, falsely claiming that the family had left and that he had just missed them. The news editor then instructed the reporter to interview neighbours, which he did, obtaining valuable information and a photograph. He also scribbled a note of condolence with his name and phone number on then posted it through the door. While this resulted in a story for the newspaper and left the grieving family undisturbed, the reporter had resorted to dishonesty.
Did the reporter do the right thing? And, if not, what should he have done?
Suggested right action:
The ethically sound course of action would have been for the reporter to:
- Communicate honestly: He should have told the news editor about the neighbour’s plea and shared his own ethical concerns about intruding on the grieving family.
- Alternative action: He should have explained that he had left a handwritten note with his contact details inviting the family to get in touch if they felt able to talk to him.
- Advocate for sensitivity: He could have suggested other alternatives such as publishing a respectful tribute to the soldier based on information from friends and community members, rather than pushing for a direct, intrusive interview with the bereaved family.
- Stand firm on ethical principles: If the news editor insisted on intrusive tactics, the reporter should have respectfully but firmly reiterated his ethical objections, even if it meant risking his job.
- Seek alternative angles: The reporter could have explored the wider impact on the community, or the life of the soldier through his friends and colleagues.
Summary:
The reporter’s decision to lie, while it achieved the immediate goal of protecting the grieving family, compromised his integrity. It also set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable when faced with ethical dilemmas.
What should have happened is that the news editor should have taken into account the reporter’s concerns, and the paper should have shown respect for the grieving family. A story that focused on the life of the soldier, and the impact on the community would have been a better way to report the story.
Journalism has a responsibility to report the truth, but it also has a responsibility to act with compassion and respect. In the pursuit of a story, ethical principles should never be sacrificed.
When analysing a “doorstepping” scenario, it’s crucial to understand that it’s a practice laden with ethical and practical complexities. It’s not simply about gathering information; it’s about the power dynamics inherent in approaching someone at their private residence. This act inherently disrupts an individual’s sense of security and control, and therefore requires a high level of consideration.
- Ethical considerations:
- The balance between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy is paramount. Doorstepping can easily cross the line into harassment, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals or sensitive topics.
- The potential for misrepresentation or manipulation is significant. The way questions are phrased, the tone of the interaction, and the editing of any resulting footage can all influence public perception in ways that may be unfair or inaccurate.
- The psychological impact on the person being doorstepped must be considered. Unexpected confrontation at one’s home can cause significant distress, regardless of the individual’s perceived culpability.
- Practical implications:
- The effectiveness of doorstepping as an information-gathering technique is debatable. While it can yield dramatic footage or sound bites, it often results in defensive or evasive responses.
- The legal implications of doorstepping vary depending on jurisdiction and the specific circumstances. Issues such as trespass, harassment, and defamation can arise.
- The rise of social media and rapid information sharing has changed how these interactions are perceived. Now, any interaction can be recorded by the doorstepped person and distributed to a large audience. This adds another layer of complexity to the action.
- Contextual nuances:
- The legitimacy of doorstepping often depends on the context. Is it being used to hold powerful figures accountable, or to sensationalise a private matter?
- The behaviour of the individual conducting the doorstepping is critical. Respectful and professional conduct can mitigate some of the ethical concerns, while aggressive or intrusive behaviour exacerbates them.
- The public perception of the person being doorstepped plays a large role in how the action is viewed. A person viewed as already being in the wrong, will receive less public sympathy than a person viewed as an innocent party.
In essence, analysing a doorstepping scenario requires a nuanced understanding of the ethical, practical, and contextual factors at play. It’s a practice that should be approached with extreme caution and a deep respect for individual rights.
In the real-life case on which this scenario is based the family responded to the reporter’s handwritten note, invited him to visit, and shared photographs and memories of the deceased, which resulted in an exclusive feature for the local newspaper.
