Breaking Tragic News

It’s near deadline. A story about a tragic killing comes across my desk and it’s my job to get comments from the family. I make the dreaded call and gently ask for reaction to the news — only to learn that the family doesn’t yet know. What now?

Journalists Face Dilemma When Interviewing Family, Friends

It’s near deadline. A story about a tragic killing comes across my desk and it’s my job to get comments from the family. I make the dreaded call and gently ask for reaction to the news — only to learn that the family doesn’t yet know. What now?

This happens more times than journalists care to admit. We certainly don’t mean to be the bearer of bad news, but when we are, what we do next will set the tone for covering this tragedy.

My thoughts are this: When we realize that we’ve inadvertently broken news of a death to someone, it is our duty as humans, as well as professional journalists, to assist those relatives or friends until help arrives. That means stopping the interview, offering condolences, offering to call someone to be with them, perhaps informing them of looming media coverage that they may face. I’m not suggesting we get terribly personal with these grief-stricken people, but compassion should arise over any task at hand.

At the same time, we have a job to do. Should we resume notetaking? Yes, if it is comfortable. At some point I would ask again if the family wants to comment. If they’re not in emotional control, however, I’d use good judgment and stop the interview completely. Perhaps in my story I’d describe their reaction rather than quote them, but again, good judgment prevails.

How about photos? If photographing a true event isn’t violating the standard privacy rules and we were invited or allowed into the situation, then yes, take photos. The act of doing our job doesn’t have to be callous. We can report and photograph an event with sensitivity and must always strive for both.

Associated Press reporter Jason Straziuso found himself in a volatile situation recently when he told Nicholas Berg’s family about the existence of a video of their son’s beheading. In his message on the Romenesko letters page at Poynter Online, Straziuso said the time he spent with the family prior to breaking news of the video helped immensely. But after breaking the news, Straziuso photographed the father as he collapsed on the front lawn. Was that right?

I tend to agree with Carl Hausman, professor of Journalism and Chair of the Department of Journalism at Rowan University. Hausman has written three books on media ethics and has testified before Congress on media and privacy issues.

First, the photographer was invited into the situation. He had gained the family’s trust to some extent. When his editor called to tell him about the video, Straziuso felt compelled to break the news to the family.

I believe, as Hausman does, that telling the family was the right thing to do. The news had to come from somewhere and it was breaking fast. Better for the father to hear it in person than from television. At least Straziuso knew what he was facing. He knew he was the first to reveal more bad news.

Taking photos of the father collapsing had to be a tough call, but the photo used was a genuine illustration of how terrible news hits home hard. Straziuso was respectful in photographing the father and, again, he was there with permission. Even if he didn’t have permission, photographing the front lawn is within privacy rules. If the family had asked Straziuso to stop taking photos, I think he should have, but apparently they did not.

Hausman offers these thoughts:

“It’s not as though he barged into a private area, sprung some news he knew the family didn’t know in order to get a dramatic shot, and then jammed a camera in their face … I think we have to give photographers some latitude because they typically have very little time to make decisions, and don’t always know every factor in the story. That’s why we have editors, who, it is hoped, can deliberate the ethics of running a photo, weighing the balance of a person’s right to privacy versus the public’s need to know and the public’s need to appreciate how the sometimes abstract events half a world away strike home.”

Debating these touchy issues is more often a luxury than a reality. We rarely have that kind of time and must react quickly to unexpected events. Every situation is different, but I believe if we maintain sensitivity, we can accomplish both human and the journalistic impulses.

And the stories will be better for it.

For more information on this topic, see the Dart Centre Europe's publication "Breaking Bad News."