Written by Eydie
Coverage of the hell on earth currently in Haiti has fomented some hand wringing, in both the ivory towers of journalism pundits and at the Cheetos-strewn computers of bloggers-come-media critics.
The issue du jour is that journalists are crossing the line, becoming part of the news rather than reporting it. Whether it’s Anderson Cooper saving a bleeding child, or an AP writer offering her personal emotional reaction, some wonder if objectivity is too high a price to pay for compelling news coverage. On its own, the ethics question is a valid one. The media is always being questioned about any bias shown in news reports. And a news story filled with varied, informed sources is much more valuable to fact-seeking readers than one based on a reporter’s personal experience.
The Haiti situation has unexpectedly highlighted certain issues about the news industry, and about the survival of old media and the emergence of new media. Bottom line? The more things change, the more they stay the same–but they’ve got to change nonetheless.
At the 2006 The Vloggies, an Internet video awards show, a big winner was Alive In Baghdad. Created by video bloggers, i.e. vloggers, the web show told the stories about real, “average Yusef” Iraqi citizens, their struggles and determination despite the shortcomings of their own government and of America’s. The vloggers received their award alongside a standing ovation and a few teary eyes. AIB exemplified how new media has succeeded over the old guard: Offering to consumers the information and stories they couldn’t get from mainstream media, while also allowing them to feel a deeper connection to the issues thanks to the interactive nature of digital, such as discussion boards that foster conversations between reporters and readers.
Anderson Cooper’s rush to drag a bleeding boy from a street being peppered with thrown debris was a good thing. And not just for the obvious humanitarian reasons. In the story he filed for CNN about looting, this was just one minor incident shown; the report also included footage such as an interview with a store owner who was trying to keep looters at bay. But in his blog, Mr. Cooper dedicated an entire post to what had happened, garnering hundreds of reader comments. Blogs, for news organizations, are the place to focus on information that’s not quite big enough–or, in this case objective enough–for an outright news story. Thus CNN covered the incident exactly right, adding depth to their overall Haiti coverage.
Lest anyone beg to differ, or lump Mr. Cooper’s action in with the narcissistic nature of certain factions of the blogosphere and personality-driven news, consider Ed Bradley in 1979. The late Mr. Bradley, a well-respected TV reporter best known for 60 Minutes, turned heads when covering the Southeast Asian refugee crisis in 1979 for CBS Reports. After noting how weakly the boat survivors tried to struggle against the tide, he went right into the surf and started helping them himself. Again, this scene was just part of Mr. Bradley’s overall news report on the crisis.
I thought about Mr. Bradley’s behavior in 2001 when, few days after 9-11, Dan Rather was a guest on Late Night With David Letterman and started to cry when talking about covering the attacks. Mr. Letterman comforted him, but in certain journalism circles, he was vilified for being “soft” and “unprofessional.” Around that same time, the magazine Brill’s Content (a short-lived media watchdog publication by Court TV founder Steven Brill) hosted an impassioned discussion about a famous photograph of an Indian man so starved he looked like a barely-living skeleton, laying on a sidewalk as a corpulent Indian denizen blithely stepped around him. Some believed the photographer was cold and cruel for taking the starving man’s picture and not, we assume , offering him help. Others pointed out that a journalist’s first duty is to bear witness and educate the world, and were concerned that once journalists “interfere” with events they will no longer be allowed–by, say, hostile governments–to report on them.
But the new media age, and the way Haiti has been covered, proved that you can do both: Promote humanity by gritting your teeth and covering the worst the world can offer, and engage in humanity by doing the right thing. At least one traditional news boss thinks so. Australian news videographer Richard Moran, of Channel Nine, put down his camera to help dig out a baby girl, along with interpreter Deiby Celestino, who retrieved the dug-out girl. As a result they “lost” the rescue footage to a competitor, which aired the incident as if its own reporter had saved the toddler. Said Channel Nine news director Mark Calvert, “I’m proud of the Nine News team… Yes, they put down their camera to help. But they also filed their story.”
Tags: Anderson Cooper, Ed Bradley, Haiti earthquake, Haiti news coverage, Journalists in Haiti, vloggers
I can’t imagine being in Haiti as a reporter and not assisting in the rescue of another human being if the drama unfolded as I was attempting to get a story. I applaud the reporter that put down his camera to help dig out that child.
CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, also is in Haiti reporting on the emergent medical situation there. He is a neurosurgeon and performed surgery on a Haitian girl who suffered a severe head injury in the quake. He is being criticized for crossing the line between covering the story and participating in the story too often. Apparently he has played this dual role in the past during the tsunami in Southeast Asia and while covering a story in Iraq.
He is not the only TV news doctor that is doing double duty down in Haiti. I have read several other reports of these docs stepping up to the plate. These “news doctors” are there to get a story but I can’t fault them for becoming part of the story.
I feel the same way about Anderson Cooper. He is a human being before he is a reporter and rushing to the aid of a child is the right thing to do.
Yes, I think those that have the opportunity to actively help, because of their skills and jobs that put them in the middle of a disaster, should not be faulted for getting involved. The world has changed, with our ability to see just about everything as it happens, and the expectations on those who bring us this news should change too. If they’re truly helping and not getting in the way of other aid, leave them alone.
Eydie, thanks for this piece. I think you helped to clarify my own thoughts.
There are times when journalists need to step back from a story and not become part of it, but I don’t think this is the case in desperate situations where they can make a difference.
Mary is right that things have changed and we now view news “as it happens.” For all we know, reporters in times past assisted others too, but it just wasn’t recorded.
I didn’t know about the Ed Bradley story. That was very interesting.
As for Dr. Gupta, I saw part of the piece where the little girl was found. I didn’t sense anything other than a doctor (and a human being) intent on doing what he could in a country that needs so much. I haven’t watched as much coverage as some, but it has largely been CNN and I think they have done an excellent job of reporting.
I don’t know if I would go as far as to say these reporters are crossing the line. I think these people not just Anderson Cooper, and Dr Gupta. It seems like all the people, Doctors, Nurses, rescue teams, that have been exposed to this tragic event, are having reactions. If you are any type of a human being at all, you must get involved. They are reporters, and exposing the depth of despair. My heart goes out to these people, and their babies, just watching the reporting!!. I can’t imagine being there in person. Saving a human life first before a story is the right thing to do. Videographer Richard Moran did the right thing!!
Then What? All the money us American have given is amazing!! We have no clue as to what other countries have given. My prayer is that the people of Haiti get the help, and not just the Goverment. So many Children are lost!! Taking the Children away from their home land, may be another tragic event in their life. There are 250,000 Orphans? OMG!!! Is it better to provide and care for them, here, or there? Twenty years down the road we may have the answer.
I for one am glad we have reporter like Richard Moran, Anderson Cooper, and Dr Gupta.
On its own, the ethics question is a valid one.
I also understand why this is a question of ethics. It didn’t used to be this way, did it? It seems to me that lines could be crossed, if the story becomes sensationalized. In the end, I do think it’s right that these reporters help while they are there if they can make a difference, especially medically-trained journalists.
I hadn’t heard about this story from Australia’s Channel Nine, Eydie. I agree that the reporters who put down their cameras to help should be commended for doing so, even if it meant they lost the better footage. Human life comes before human interest, IMO.
Its such a literal disaster area I can’t imagine anyone not helping when they encounter an immediate need. The video of Anderson Cooper helping the inured boy was really touching.
Human life comes before human interest.
Well said Ann.
If you’re not creating the story as a journalist I don’t see the harm of stepping into a story that’s already there. I don’t see that as walking a fine line.
You are a human being first and a reporter secondary. At least that’s how it should be in my opinion.