Media ethics in interviewing accused in detention

By Atty. Farah Decano

 

 A few weeks ago, I discussed the legalities of the media interview of the accused in detention. However, what may be legal may not necessarily be ethical. Knowing that the present ruling of the Supreme Court –that admissions of accused while in detention are admissible in evidence, is it right for a reporter to ask incriminating questions to him/her?

There are four identified ethical approaches that may guide the media reporter in answering the above query: (1) Consequentialism; (2) Deontology; (3) Virtue Ethics; and (4) Principlism [1]”

The consequentialist approach makes no moral judgment as to the means but passes upon the actions based on the results.  Deontologist approach however centers more on the compliance with rules and duty rather than the result. Virtue ethics focuses on the internal moral compass of the reporter that defines his actions. Principlism is an offshoot of virtue ethics wherein the individual must have to balance ethical principles which may appear conflicting in a given situation.

Taking into consideration the purpose of media reporting of crime – to relay accurate facts to the public despite time, space and money constraints, the consequentialist approach to interviewing the accused in detention would be to disregard the possible effects for as long as the purpose is achieved.  The reporter would have no regard whether the accused would be further implicated for as long as the news is delivered accurately.

Under the Deontological Approach, a media reporter would most likely propound incriminatory questions.   His/ her only concern is to deliver precise facts to the public about certain incidents.  The advocate of Deontology would seek justification from the Supreme Court Rulings for his/her queries.

The media person who is a supporter of virtue ethics, however, will look into his own moral compass that was developed through the years of practice and experience. He will seek guidance from established Journalist Code of the Ethics[2], which are generally the following: (1) Truth and Accuracy; (2) Independence; (3) Fairness and Impartiality; (4)   Humanity; and (5) Accountability.

The virtues ethics advocate will not propound an incriminatory question to an uncounseled accused in detention because doing so is against fair play.  Fairness requires that accused be properly and adequately informed of the legal consequences of his statements. The media person, who lives and practices virtue ethics, will also consider the humanity of the accused in detention including his frailties before propounding any question.

The champion of Principlism will have to examine his situation against the four principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The first principle mandates that persons must be respected as individuals and that those with diminished autonomy should be given protection[3].  The principle of beneficence requires that persons must be treated with kindness by securing their well-being[4].  The principle of non-maleficence necessitates that for every action taken, one must not do harm or at least, minimize the harm done.  Lastly, the observance of the principle of justice requires a “sense of ‘fairness in distribution’ or “what is deserved.”

Of the four ethical approaches, the virtue ethics theory, combined with the principlist approach, seems most plausible. Under this joint approach, reporters must consider not only the outcomes of their interviews but also their means.  They will be required to develop an “interior” compass of the morality of their acts and the mastery of the written ethical codes.  Lastly, when the written code of ethics becomes insufficient, media reporters may have to pass judgments on their intended actions against the four of principles of ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.

[1] https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/institutional-review-board/basic-ethical-principles  Available on December 2, 2016.

2 http://www.transparencynow.com/news/ethical.htm  Available on September 16, 2020

[1] http://www.advancedpractice.scot.nhs.uk/legal-and-ethics-guidance/what-is-ethics/ethical-theories.aspx Available on December 1, 2016

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments