This essay answers a scenario-based question relating to how journalists use their ethical judgement, in combination with the law, to navigate sensitively working with vulnerable sources.
QUESTION: What pitfalls may journalists encounter when handling
vulnerable sources? After setting out the issues, examine at least one
case study in depth and suggest how to avoid the pitfall(s) revealed in
that case.
The umbrella term of a “vulnerable” source is broad within ‘trauma reporting’,
encompassing – but not limited to – ‘bereaved parents, survivors of abuse, and people
to whom terrible things have happened’ (see Healy, cited in Blackley, 2022). Therefore,
a journalist reporting on a sensitive story must evaluate many varying factors to avoid
compromising their morals or the law, or causing harm to others.
The first issue that a journalist may encounter is figuring out how to approach their
source effectively. A journalist must consider what it means to approach something
“sensitively”, bear relevant laws in mind while proceeding (e.g., anonymity and privacy
clauses, The Children’s Act 1989 if minors are involved, etc), and decide whether they
are being a ‘good’, ethical journalist by approaching the source at all.
For instance, is it appropriate to ‘death knock’ – to knock on the door of a bereaved
person’s home ‘seeking information about and comment on a person who has recently
died’ (Frost, 2015, p.178)? Can it be deemed a morally justifiable act, conducted with
fair intention towards letting the source have space to tell their story?
Concurrently, journalists face the potential for interviewees to drop out: a source may
initially grant consent but later revoke it. When this occurs, a reporter must put the
interviewee’s wellbeing before their story (see Thomas Foundation, 2021, (*1)), even if
they are left empty-handed.
Disregarding the source’s feelings will cause more hurt to an already vulnerable
individual or group(s): “We can distress our interviewees by handling them in an
1
, City UOL, MA Magazine Journalism
ill-informed, inept way” (see Healy, cited in Blackley, 2022). This disrespect additionally
breaches numerous codes of conduct, including the ‘Global Charter of Ethics for
Journalists’ (IFJ, 2019):
A journalist ‘will respect privacy’ and shall ‘show particular consideration to
inexperienced and vulnerable interviewees’. - [Clause 8]
Another pitfall when handling vulnerable sources is the risk of misrepresenting the truth.
If a journalist decides to leave out parts of a story that may be found upsetting, or if an
interviewee only feels comfortable providing partial information, the final story will not be
representative of a whole. It will instead be a version reduced to its simple culmination
(see Frost, 2015, p.157). In turn, it becomes arguable whether a journalist is truly
fulfilling their role in reporting news transparently, or in being the “watchdog” of
democratic society.
Such misrepresentations, regardless of intention, can further lead to issues surrounding
defamation or misinformation if the story represents the source in a skewed light:
‘Very often, a defamation claim will turn on the meaning of the words used: the
publication will say they meant one, non-defamatory thing, and the claimant will allege
that readers could have understood them to have a different, defamatory or untrue
meaning’. - (Quinn, 2018, p.216).
A combination of these issues had the potential to surface during the Dance &
Battersbee v. Barts Health NHS Trust (2022) case. The case revolved around the
pending health of a 12-year-old boy, Archie Battersbee, who was left brain-stem dead
after an accident. Nonetheless Battersbee’s mother, Hollie Dance, refused to believe
this and wanted her son to continue treatment. As thus, this case concerned a conflict
between relational ethics, consequentialism, and the debate of euthanasia as ‘suicide’.
What is the “correct” ethical duty of care in an instance where someone is voiceless?
2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller cieracree. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.87. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
