Professional Documents
Culture Documents
There can be no doubt that the media has helped to provide a platform for
terrorism on a global scale. This essay will analyse to what extent the media
should be held accountable in terms of the publicity they generate around
terrorism. I will be analysing the ethical doctrines of Immanuel Kant and Aristotle
and use their work to try and relate to the modern day ethical situations that UK
broadcasters have had to deal with. I will also develop a viewpoint using both of
the theorists’ work and the legal system to see the extent to which UK
broadcasters should or should not give terrorism the oxygen of publicity.
Kant placed a higher moral value on the internal feelings and norms of an
individual. In other words Kant was stating that the sense of duty in an individual
varies and this variation is termed ‘categorical imperative’. Kant thought that
each individual has a duty to tell the truth, even if it may harm others and this
was paramount even if the categorical imperative varied between individuals. In
sum, duty based theories do not approve of using morally wrong methods even if
one was to achieve a good result.
weigh a moral case equally, ‘the mean is not only the right quantity, but it occurs
at the right time, toward the right people, for the right reason and in the right
manner’. [Christians, 2005, 12]
The first case I am going to investigate is that of the Nick Berg beheading.
The Nick Berg beheading was originally broadcast on a website through a single
video clip lasting no more than six minutes in duration. If the video was
broadcast from start to finish it would have shown the violent massacre in
gruesome detail, and so a moral dilemma is presented to the newscasters in
terms of how much content should be broadcast. I will use the SAD formula to
analyse the situation because it is one that could be used in a real time news
broadcast environment. The SAD formula (originally formulated by Potter) follows
three stages: definition, analysis and finally a decision, asking for moral
judgements throughout the process.
The Nick Berg beheading took place on 8th May 2004 and the execution
was broadcast three days later on the website of the militant group Muntada al-
Ansar under the title of "Abu Musa'b al-Zarqawi slaughters an American". The
conflicting values are that of the right to privacy and confidentiality of the victim
against the right of the public to receive information. There are also ethical
questions raised: is it ethical for the public to be shown such a horrific incident of
death? Secondly, is it ethical for newscasters to report on the savage way Nick
Berg was murdered given that the second gulf war was supposed to win the
hearts and minds of both the coalition forces and the people of Iraq?
The arguments for the broadcast to go ahead were that this incident was a
part of the Iraq war, and one might argue that viewers deserve to know every
newsworthy detail, from stories of heroism, to stories of death and destruction,
33120057 MC53046A – Media Law & EthicsWC: 3,945
as in the case of Nick Berg. Furthermore, newscasters do not have to show the
execution itself; they can show the video right up to the execution. Thus, it could
be argued that if viewers really wanted to see the execution they could view it
online, and by the mere fact of it being reported by newscasters, they are being
offered this option.
Morality is rooted in conscience and it is for this reason that I have decided
to start with Kantian ethics. We cannot ignore the philosophy of religion because
whether or not we believe in God; religion determines the nature of the mind and
body in the face of good and evil. According to Kantian ethics, ‘act only on that
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal
law’ [Kant, 1964, 71]. I accept that while the actual beheading was not
broadcast on mainstream television, it still gave the beheading the oxygen of
publicity. Indeed even today if you search for ‘Nick Berg beheading’ you are
provided with a plethora of video streaming networks in which one can view the
video. The beheading itself was, of course, immoral and, in line with Kantian
ethics, murder will always be so. And from this follows the view that news of the
murder should not have been broadcast.
and subject the immediate family to more pain and suffering. Neo-Aristotelian
supporters would suggest that natural justice is achieved by the attainment of a
state of goodness. The golden mean would be, perhaps, to broadcast the non-
violent parts of the video. However, I feel that broadcasting the video could be
justified in that it shows its audience the horrors of war, and help to build
opposition to it as the atrocities will ‘jolt people out of their apathy’ [Keeble,
2001, 243]
To sum up, modern day moral decisions that media broadcasters have
been faced with in the case of Nick Berg, would suggest that Kantian Ethics are
far too uncompromising for the complex world we live in. Although duty based
ethics in theory would produce a remarkably cohesive society, in practice I feel
that situations warrant some sort of concession, especially in regards to
terrorism. In line with Aristotle’s golden mean, the decision to broadcast parts of
the video that show Nick Berg in front of his captors, without broadcasting the
actual beheading would be the right one to make. While this does imply the
covering or withholding of certain truths, in the modern world, where the
majority of people in Western culture have access to the Internet, such atrocities
can be viewed easily online.
The Nick Berg Beheading was clearly a complex moral issue. However it
was not one that would help prevent or at least prolong the loss of lives. Many
might argue that saving another life is the ultimate duty, and for the purpose of
determining whether or not the Kenneth Bigley video should have been
broadcast, this discussion will draw upon Potter’s Box of Moral Reasoning. The
Potter box model identifies four areas of reasoning: definition, values, principles
and loyalties. While much like the SAD formula, the first two areas are
descriptive (referring to what actually happens) and the latter two are normative
(referring to what ought to happen). It is important to note that it is precisely
because we have no control over terrorists that these models of reasoning
should be used. Once a conclusion has been reached, I feel that a justified
opinion on whether broadcasting terrorist hostage videos is ethical or not can be
finalised.
A case in point was demonstrated in April 2007, when the US forces built a
wall surrounding the town of Adhamiya in Iraq to protect its citizens from
sectarian attack. Neither the citizens nor the Iraqi parliament were consulted
about this construction; indeed when a referendum was held, 99% of the vote
was against the idea. The wall left the town without oil, food and gas for a week
and while the price of food increased five fold, severe cases of violence were
reported. This story was not presented on the news however and no official
would comment on it, extremely ironic especially given the fact that the then
33120057 MC53046A – Media Law & EthicsWC: 3,945
republican presidential candidate, Fred Thompson said “all indications are good“
[Thompson, 2007, Online].
Loyalties are without doubt the most important section of the Potter Box
Model because it determines why the news broadcasters made the decisions
they did. One might ask what is more important: the welfare of the viewers or
the welfare of those involved in the broadcast. The broadcasters had to consider
‘subscribers and viewers, sources of information, politicians, ethnic minorities
represented, children law enforcement personnel, judges and lawyers...’.
[Christians et al., 2005, 6] At least two of the three videos that the British media
received were taken from or purchased by Al Jazeera. The question of loyalties
ultimately lies with the consumer. However, it is fair to say that if a video of
Bigley is shown where he is distressed, and in essence there are no new
developments, then it can be argued that a newscaster is not being disloyal to
the viewer, because there is nothing ‘newsworthy’ to see. Furthermore, actually
showing Bigley being beheaded is not hiding the truth from the viewer; indeed
the news can be broken using minutes before the execution. A case in point was
in regards to the hanging of Saddam Hussein in December 2006. The execution
was not shown and yet the news broke worldwide. If viewers were so inclined to
view the execution of Bigley and Saddam, then in most cases they were free to
view them online with ease. Mainstream media platforms do not hold the
privilege of monopolizing the presentation of news, but with this said they must
act with loyalty and compassion to the viewers they have.
The question of censorship is one that is fraught with ethical and moral
questions. If newscasters do censor, they run the risk of effectively ‘covering up’,
or lying about the reality of what has happened to the captives, and in doing so
would be undermining the importance and effectiveness of British military
security in Iraq. Indeed, the effectiveness of media black outs in this day and age
are questionable. In December 2007 when Prince Harry was deployed in
Helmand Province, for example, Keeble writes that ‘8 days after Harry had been
33120057 MC53046A – Media Law & EthicsWC: 3,945
deployed, the Ministry of Defence received a call from the US broadcast channel,
saying they were planning to run the story’. In actuality, he continues, ‘….an
Australian women’s magazine first leaked the story on 7 January’. [2001, 241].
In fact it was the Drudge Report that revealed the story to the world at large on
28th February. Although the media black out of this story was treated as high
priority, it only in fact lasted 8 weeks and this demonstrates the point that any
story that is subjected to a media black out will inevitably be leaked for the
global network to read about.
The significance of the Demon Vs Godfrey case is that there is no way the
internet can be regulated (in the UK as least) and so if a terrorist hostage video
is leaked or broadcast online then surely internet content in general is beyond
claiming that it is authentic and original. Furthermore, if content is beyond trust
and credibility, how can there be any liability for defamation? Legally then, it was
essential that the news broadcasters were certain that it was Kenneth Bigley on
the video tape. Once this has been confirmed, ethical decisions become the most
significant. As the Demon Vs Godfrey case shows, once the video is on the
internet, the law becomes very hard to administer, but newscasters still have to
stick to the law and Ofcom regulations!
Bibliography
33120057 MC53046A – Media Law & EthicsWC: 3,945
Christians, Clifford et al. (2005) Pages 6, 10, 12 ‘Media Ethics: Cases and Moral
Reasoning’Pearson Publishing
Crook, Tim (2010) Pages 53, 156, 157, 166 ‘Comparative Media Law and
Ethics’ Routledge
Keeble, Richard (2001) pages 241, 243 ‘Ethics for Journalists’ Routledge in the
2009 print edition
Koppel, Ted (2003) page 93 ‘Deciding what images to show’ Nieman Reports