Detachment and Compassion in Reporting
by Liz Vlahos
As journalists, we have it drummed into our heads from day one that we have to approach everything we cover with an objective eye. It’s a cardinal rule, as sacrosanct to our profession as the Hippocratic Oath to the medical field. This is especially important with “fake news” having become a major point of contention this past year; to show any type of personal bias in any story covered calls into question our objectivity and our ability to do our jobs effectively. As journalists, we are expected to detach ourselves from the subject matter as much as humanly possible, and also to recognize when our personal biases may impact our ability to tell the story in question.
With the words, “as much as humanly possible,” however, a question comes to mind: How much detachment from the subject matter is too much?
In our business, the chances of covering feel-good news all the time are zero; no matter where we find work, bad things will happen that we will be expected to cover. These include the following:
- Natural disasters – tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so on.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/24/americas/hurricane-maria-puerto-rico-aftermath/index.html - Fatal traffic crashes – these aren’t limited to the city, as evidenced by the horrific crash in Beecher, Ill., in late July that killed a pregnant mother and all three of her children.
http://abc7chicago.com/news/3rd-brother-dies-after-fatal-beecher-crash/2254722/ - We’ve also seen quite a few pedestrians killed by Metra or CTA trains in recent months.
- Unexpected tragedies – the aforementioned crash, for example, or the sudden death of a high-school or collegiate athlete.
- Scandals or investigations that bring an institution’s reputation into question, such as the football hazing scandal at Wheaton College or the NCAA basketball recruiting scandal, both of which made headlines in recent weeks.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wheaton-college-football-hazing-met-20170918-story.html - Violent crime and terrorist attacks. Sadly, no shortage of violent crime exists here in Chicago, as the death toll climbs from one shooting after another.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-violence-20171004-story.html
The knife attack in Marseille, France and the massacre in Las Vegas in late September and early October only serve to drive the above point home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/02/police-shut-down-part-of-las-vegas-strip-due-to-shooting/
By no means is the above an exhaustive list.
A certain degree of detachment is healthy and necessary in covering these types of stories, for failure to do so can be detrimental not only to a reporter’s ability to effectively tell the story, but also to his or her well-being. At what point, however, does detachment become a liability rather than an asset?
It can be argued that engaging those we interview on a personal level is bad practice, for it could potentially compromise our objectivity in reporting. It could also be argued that making our interview subjects comfortable enough to talk could garner us more information for our stories. In addition, an argument could be presented that being too cold and detached could discourage an interview subject from cooperating. These perspectives on their own, however, come across as excessively utilitarian and neglect one simple truth.
The people we interview are not simply sources of information. Any person we interview in these circumstances could be profoundly affected by the events that transpired, and for a reporter to blindly bombard that person with question after question can cause significant trauma. A key tenet of the SPJ Code of Ethics is to minimize harm, of which the second sub-tenet specifically states to show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Mining the parent of a murdered child for information as if you were doing a data dive on that person shows a blatant lack of compassion that could also be considered cruelty from the perspective of the bereaved. We cannot allow ourselves to become so detached from what we’re covering that we treat those affected as a check in the box rather than as human beings who are, at that moment, reeling and hurting from what has transpired. If we cannot bring ourselves to care about what has happened, let alone show compassion to those affected, we really shouldn’t be there.
We need to find the delicate balance between detachment and compassion. This balance is necessary in order for us to effectively do our jobs and to do right by those whose lives were torn asunder by the events we are sent to cover.