I beg to differ

I always appreciate when someone contributes an opinion piece to The News Record that I do not agree with. It happens pretty regularly, actually. Usually it's about politics or some fluff, pop-culture opinion story that shouldn't get any attention.

Increasingly, journalists want to write about journalism. And I love that. Who knows or understands the field better?

So Wednesday night when I was editing pages, I was looking forward to reading "Journalists aid disaster victims" by second-year journalism student Stephanie Kitchens. I had a general idea of its contents: Anderson Cooper saves injured boy during chaos. So, I edited, and then I read.

Kitchens' overall argument is this: Although it might seem unethical to help someone if you are covering a story related to their predicament, journalists are humans before they are journalists. But, networks should not air footage or display photographs of the journalists aiding the victims.

After reading, I feel compelled to offer a response.

With the former part of her argument, I agree. When disasters happen, I ask myself, What would I do if I were an on-the-scene journalist in this scenario?" Every time the answer is the same: Help. I think journalists are unfairly pegged with blanket reputations as insensitive lovers of misfortune and disaster. I don't think that's right. What makes the news is most often something that is unusual or unexpected -- disaster falls into both of those categories.

Just as there has been backlash from Anderson Cooper aiding the young boy who was struck with a block of concrete and bleeding profusely from the head, it might lead one to wonder what would the backlash be if Cooper's video team had simply turned the camera on and watched the young boy die. In this instance, I think Cooper made the right humanitarian decision.

Kitchens' wants to take CNN to task for airing the footage and for Cooper displaying the video and photos on his blog. She says it's not right and the network was using Cooper's heroic deed for self-promotion:

This video positively represents Cooper, thus the network that he works for, CNN, benefits from this by being affiliated with a hero. It is persuasive material that could change the public’s opinion of both the reporter and the network.

Cooper should not be playing a public relations role — he is a reporter. While no one should fault him for helping his fellow man, CNN shouldn’t air the footage even if it grabs ratings. After a catastrophe, the networks should run stories describing the aftermath, not the journalists’ involvement in the effort because it is not objective.

Consider the type of news being reported from Haiti at this point. Death. Destruction. Devastation. Looting. Everything is doom and gloom. I do not fault CNN for wanting to air something that showed a humanitarian effort -- they had done the same with other civilians who had survived the earthquake and were now helping to sort through the rubble. The videographer happened to be in the right place at the right time. Cooper had the right feeling at the right time. Together, it produced a short news package. I, for one, am always curious how journalists handle their work when they're thrust into disastrous situations. What are they doing? Who are they talking to? What are their 0ff-air interactions with the people like? Sure, CNN's motive could have been, "Hey, look at how helpful we are." But, I doubt it. To me, Cooper's assisting others is one of the first things I learned in journalism and is a part of the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics: Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

Until this point, I still wasn't all that uncomfortable with Kitchens' arguments. That changed pretty quickly once I reached the last paragraph.

When a disaster like Haiti occurs, the lines of journalism ethics can become blurred. But reporting on something that involves the journalists is always unethical regardless of the situation.

So, what this says to me is, no news organization should report on any of the following:
- a journalist who dies for a story
- a journalist who goes to jail for a source
- a journalist who is kidnapped while reporting for a story
- a journalist who deceives the public

The last graph left me fired up, ranting to other editors who were in the office late Wednesday night and into Thursday morning. At least I know Kitchens' is doing what editorial writers are supposed to do: inspire conversations and debates.

-- Taylor