In modern society, it is often the stories with the greatest shock factor that make the
headlines. Often, the media fills the role of providing entertainment value rather than focusing on
the preeminent responsibility of covering the truth. In the last few weeks, the events surrounding
the death of Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna and the other individuals in the helicopter crash
have been circulated widely in the press and on social media.
While this is certainly a newsworthy event, and there are valid reasons for covering this
tragedy, the majority of the press surrounding this situation have turned it into a spectacle rather
than a time of united mourning.
Tragedies like Bryant’s death matter to the American identity. Grief shapes people,
language and culture. Such an iconic figure deserves to be recognized and remembered, and the
press has a large role to play in that.
But, ethically speaking, there is a line between emphasizing the legacy of lives lost and
using tragic deaths as an excuse to rehash old stories. Journalism should never be used to co-opt
the pain of a grieving family and the mourning period of a nation to gain money off the
sensationalist nature of the news.
In the case of Bryant, TMZ reported his death before the victims of the crash were
identified, and before their families had been contacted with the tragic news. Los Angeles
County Undersheriff Tim Murakami tweeted on Sunday that he was also “saddened that I was
gathering facts as a media outlet reported that Kobe had passed.”
Murakami continued, “I understand getting the scoop but please allow us time to make
personal notifications to their loved ones. It’s very cold to hear of the loss via media.”
There is certainly an economic component to journalism that must be considered, so it is
unreasonable to propose that all tragedy be displayed by lengthy, factual articles that don’t do
justice to the fact that there were lives lost. But it is also the responsibility of a profession
dedicated (in theory) to the pursuit of truth to ensure that the proper protocol be followed when
releasing news with such heavy consequences.
Journalism’s goal is not to over-emotionalize difficult content in order to attract public
attention. Especially in cases regarding the death of celebrity figures, it is important for the
journalistic ethic to rest first and foremost on the fact that they were human beings. Celebrities
are full of moral complexity, are shaped by society and have a complete history, and that human
state should be respected even in death.
Reporting on a celebrity death includes a complete review of that person’s life, even if
this requires old wounds resurfacing. It is, as the old saying goes, not respectful to speak ill of
the dead, but it is even more detrimental when mistakes or questionable acts are used to defame
the deceased in countless news outlets worldwide, even though that kind of reporting tends to
draw people in. A person’s past should be taken in full frame. Scandals or unresolved negative
histories should not be used to gain more clicks, but they should not be overlooked or ignored,
either.
In a culture obsessed with scandals, it is important to draw a fixed line between what is
truth-telling and what is slanderous. It is not fair to the families affected by tragic events, or to
the public seeking valid information, to represent these events in an emotionally focused or
uncouth manner. The ethics of journalists should be held to a higher standard than coffee-shop
speculation, and members of the profession should treat this standard with the utmost care and
responsibility.
