An Open Letter to Sri Lankan Media Establishments,
On 25 April 2016, two 19 year-old young women were fatally hit by a train while attempting to crossa railway track in Dehiwala. The tragic incident quickly attracted the attention of the media, and journalists from every major domestic media outlet reported the incident, bringing to the nation and the world images and stories about the tragic death of two friends. The coverage included graphic
CCTV footage of their last moments, sound bites from devastated parents and family, as well as those from a grief-stricken student body.
We write this letter as citizens who observed this tragedy via the local media; we are deeply concerned by the visible lack of principles and ethics for journalism in Sri Lanka, as displayed in the coverage of this recent event. We believe reportage of this incident has revealed the major ethical failings of our media.
As a people we have experienced and continue to experience numerous challenges – a war, a major natural disaster, and various ongoing social conflicts; we would think, as a nation, that we have by now developed a heightened level of sensitivity towards tragedy and conflict, and that we would see this reflected in our media. However time and again, the Sri Lankan media, mainstream and otherwise, have displayed a troubling disregard for basic ethics, disappointing the public in our need for sensitivity. It has always been paramount to create a framework of value-based ethics, which can guide the work of our journalists and media publishers; today the need is most urgent.
Overview of incident:
According to our observations, both print and electronic media coverage of this incident was problematic.
Many mainstream TV news channels televised actual CCTV footage of the tragic accident without censure, with their first reports of the incident. This footage captured the actual point of contact between the victims and the train; in several reports, it was slowed down and replayed multiple times. The news reports of the events were then uploaded to social media networks including Facebook (and subsequently linked to respective Twitter accounts), and hosted on the media outlets’ respective channels on Youtube (the news reports including the CCTV footage were still available on many of these forums at the time of writing this letter.)
Print media printed false and unverified information in their reports, and carried contemptuous op-eds, which began a cycle of thoughtless victim-blaming.
This leaves us, as citizens of this country with a series of questions regarding the assumed role of the media in cases such as this, and the journalistic ethics we believe were flouted.
1. The editorial decision to televise this CCTV footage calls to question the commitment to sensitive reportage and exposes clear ethical issues.
Did the editor/s consider the impact of seeing such graphic footage on the general public, and more importantly, on the families of the victims, for whom this remains a personal tragedy? Did the media consider what it might feel like to have the death of a loved one repeatedly televised?
Were the families of the victims officially notified of the deaths before the broadcasting of the graphic footage?
2. The reportage could compromise genuine attempts to uncover the facts and is a clear display of irresponsible journalism.
Was the CCTV footage of the accident released to the public by the media before the relevant law enforcement officials had an opportunity to review it? Does this compromise the integrity of a real investigation?
Was this crucial bit of evidence released to the media by law enforcement officers or a third party? If the CCTV footage was released to the media by a third party, didn’t the media have a responsibility to support the investigation by not televising it?
3. The sensationalized reportage disregarded any respect for the privacy of the victims and their grieving families, and the community at large.
We are aware that the photograph of the girls that was televised and printed was taken from a Facebook post uploaded by a grieving classmate, with a personal message. The photo was taken without the expressed permission of the said Facebook user, nor were the wishes of the family considered in this matter.
Newsfirst’s report included a photo taken off one of the victim’s Instgram accounts, which was then used for an over-dramatized, fatalistic report. Camera crews visited the houses of the victims, televised the funeral, and images of grief-stricken parents. The street address and the house is clearly identifiable in the reports. The camera crews even followed the procession to the cemetery and attempted to speak to family and friends there.
4. Did the media sensationalize the reportage to exploit a tragic event but fail in their basic duty to report facts?
What was the true motivation behind releasing and then highlighting the graphic footage of the accident in a situation such as this? The media may justify the showing of graphic footage at times when a ‘truth’ needs to be exposed in service of the public. Cases of major human rights abuses, corruption etc. come to mind. However, in a case such as this, where the incident is an accidental death – what is the real purpose of this kind of reportage?
In further attempts to sensationalize the tragedy, various media outlets interviewed ‘eyewitnesses’ the next day; these reports said that the young women had their earphones plugged into their ears at the time of the accident, and that this was the main cause of the fatality. The media used this unverified information to create unnecessary, non-constructive discussions about the victims of the tragedy being responsible for their own deaths.
Reports later surfaced through other media sources that this piece of information was not true; the doctor who performed the post-mortem on the bodies of the young women very clearly stated he found they were not wearing any devices; this fact was next verified by the driver of the train.
The media resorted to op-eds with a righteous, moralistic tone, questioning a) the ‘younger generations’ so-called obsession with technological devices, b) the victims choices, as young people and particularly as young women, in being out for a social gathering that night.
Archaic, and indeed sexist ideas were promoted through these op-eds. With the media behaving like this, it only encouraged the public to also engage in thoughtless and sometimes downright cruel banter about how the victims were to blame.
Conclusion
We are worried that the media is perpetuating a culture of morbid fascination towards tragedies, without consideration for the people who are worst affected. This leaves us with the unfortunate conclusion that media outlets do this because perpetuating such a culture simply leads to an increase in their readership/viewership.
Some media outlets, upon being publicly questioned on the ethics behind broadcasting graphic footage, did remove the footage from some of the forums on which they have an official presence.
But the removal of the footage did not occur across the boards, and to date, the footage is available on some mediums.
We urge all our media establishments to develop stringent guidelines and practice sensitivity in their work, and to educate themselves on some key fundamental journalistic principles which are universally accepted and practiced. While we fully appreciate the complex duties journalists must balance when reporting on sensitive topics, we must demand as a public that the media is more responsible and credible. Further, we ask that the media considers the important role it has to play in shaping the public’s responses to situations of crises, and consider this a serious responsibility.
Our email addresses are given below, and we would be happy for any responses from media personnel, publicly or privately, with regard to this matter. We are keen to begin a constructive discourse in a public forum, but believed it was the right thing to do to first send this directly out to as many journalists and editors as we possibly could. Your thoughts and concerns are welcome.
Subha Wijesiriwardena | s.menike@gmail.com
Jake Oorloff | jake.contact@gmail.com
Colombo, 09 May 2016.
