One of the significant issues I see with media is that we could better explain ourselves.
For people who make a living telling stories, we don’t tell our own enough, in other words.
Like with any job or service, where there is mystery, suspicion or misinformation ensues.
There was recently a National NewsMedia Council decision that readers may find enlightening in understanding some of the more controversial aspects of journalism.
The National NewsMedia Council is a voluntary, self-regulatory ethics body for the news media.
It is a place journalists turn to check on ethics and standards and where readers can turn to file a complaint about a story.
The results of those complaints are then published.
I learn something from every decision, and I think readers might, too.
The case Herman v Castanet is particularly interesting in that The Squamish Chief often covers highway crashes as well.
The case centres around a fatal crash on a busy stretch of highway.
The complainant alleged a breach of journalistic standards against Castanet (a sister outlet to The Squamish Chief) over the use of photos and coverage of sensitive matters, namely the death of her brother in a vehicle crash.
A June 4, 2024, story published by Castanet reported on the fatal motorcycle crash. It included an image the newsroom edited that included a small oval that obscured the body of the deceased, her brother.
“She felt that the image and reporting were insensitive and requested that the image be removed. The complainant stated her main concern was about the use of the image.”
She objected to the photo, statements from a witness that were included in the text of the story, and she found it insensitive that her family was asked by a journalist if they wanted to make a statement about the death.
The decision noted that newsrooms have a duty to be sensitive to those suffering the trauma of such events, but it dismissed the complaint.
I invite readers to read the full decision, as I can’t do it justice in this space, but ultimately, the council’s decision reinforced that newsrooms cover these stories and release photos of these tragic events for the public good.
Regarding the picture, the council noted that while not ideal given the need to blur a portion of the image—undoctored photos are always preferred for news items—it also did not show the victim or anything graphic.
“Photographs are powerful tools that may serve to educate readers about the impact of an event or ongoing situation in a community. The [council] likewise recognizes that images of tragic events may provide cautionary accounts or indicate the need for change, such as better safety measures. In this way, it is standard practice for news organizations to report on such matters as a way to inform the community and promote accountability. Journalists are tasked with weighing which information and images to share with the public as a way to balance these community interests with respect for individuals affected by the situation at hand.”
The council decision also noted that seeking comment from families impacted by a tragedy is a difficult but important opportunity for loved ones, if they so wish, to share their feelings or thoughts. An opportunity some find insensitive but others welcome.
I would add that reporters hate making those calls to get comments from family or friends and often shed a tear or two after, but it is part of our job.
The decision notes that “the NNC does not support the removal of content except in rare cases, such as egregious editorial error.”
(Glacier Media has a committee that deliberates on all such requests; it isn’t up to the individual editors, for the record.)
Ultimately, while unpleasant for all involved, these difficult and sad stories are better told than not, in my view.
