GDD-330
4/25/09
Introduction
A death in the family is probably one of the most tragic events a person could suffer. It’s a private experience and grieving process that many do not wish to share with the world. But what happens when the death is of a highly publicized and world-renowned individual? Now the death is qualified as “newsworthy” and the media instantly wants coverage of the story. What are the boundaries, rights and responsibilities for journalists when it comes to difficult scenarios such as the one following, and what is the fine line between intruding on a private moment and obtaining the necessary information to cover the story?
This analysis will look at the highly publicized death of internationally known NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt and the media’s request to obtain autopsy photographs from the deceased’s wife, Teresa. It will look at the ethical issues facing the journalists and the balance between the necessity of information for the story and respecting a family’s privacy rights. It will also look at when reporters become less of journalists seeking a story and more of vultures searching for their “prey”, obtaining it by any means necessary.
USA Today: Earnhardt tragedy turns into debate over privacy
This USA Today article, written on June 19th, 2001, outlines the struggle between Teresa Earnhardt, wife of former racecar driver Dale Earnhardt, and a newspaper fighting for the release of Dale Earnhardt’s autopsy photos.
The article writes about how the Orlando Sentinel, a regional Daytona Beach, Florida newspaper, pressured Teresa Earnhardt to turn over autopsy photos from her husband’s death, believing they had “the right to public records.” Teresa and other lawmakers set out to curb the law, citing common decency.
After a public battle, Teresa reached an agreement with the Sentinel to allow an independent coroner to examine the photos with the Sentinel being allowed to ask three questions to the coroner regarding head injuries. After that session, the photos will be hidden from public view.
Although Teresa was able to settle this matter, the overarching issue still remains that the media is allowed to ask for access to these photos. And while this request might not have received as much coverage a few years ago, Teresa and others were concerned about releasing the photos “in an era in which all [the] stuff [is] available to everyone in a matter of minutes.”
The article also reveals one of the Sentinel’s possible motives behind its relentless push for the photos, it’s drive to “play a leading role in motor sports coverage.” Right before the Daytona 500, during which Earnhardt suffers a fatal crash of his racecar, the Sentinel had released a series on safety in the auto car racing and the methods of which it was handled by those involved.
The series outlined the hazards of race cars and reported that one device, the Head And Neck Support (HANS) device, could have saved multiple lives of NASCAR drivers that had lost their loves during a NASCAR race. To further this conclusion, the Sentinel wanted to obtain Earnhardt’s autopsy photos to determine if his death could have been prevented.
Despite reports from attending physicians for Earnhardt who reported his death was a result of a seatbelt malfunction and doubted the prevention of it on a HANS device, the Sentinel still were strong in their beliefs and wanted a head trauma expert to examine the photos and determine the skull fracture Earnhardt received.
After the initial request, Teresa took the Sentinel to court to dispute the Sentinel claim despite Florida’s public record laws that state that most autopsy photos are categorized as public record. And while the Sentinel claims that it has no intention to publish the photos, Teresa believes that if the Sentinel is granted access, it will not be a long period of time before other news outlets begin to request the use of the photos, which could eventually lead to publication in news outlets and on the internet.
Daily Gamecock: Hodges: Don’t publish autopsy photos
This March 7, 2001 article by Valerie Matchette take a different stance on the autopsy photo issue than the previous article. The article starts by discussing one governor’s opinion on the autopsy photos. Governor Jim Hodges spoke out earlier that week against the media’s desire to print the autopsy photographs, citing that they should be considered medical records. If the photos were deemed as medical records, by law they would be unavailable to the public.
In order to strengthen his case, Hodges cited a case from 1981 that was sent from Attorney General Daniel McLeod to the Georgetown Country Coroner Willson Williams. In the report, McLeod stated, “ The details of an autopsy report are of such intimate, personal nature concerning vivid medical allusions to parts of the human body, their description and indications of prior history. A report of this nature constitutes a medical record which is not available for public consumption.”
Based on this report, medical officials would have the authority to deny the release of any autopsy information if they so choose, but would conversely allow them to release such information if they saw a need for it, even if they did not have the family’s permission.
Overall, Hodges believes that officials should have specific rights and responsibilities when dealing with the media, but the final choice should lay in the hands of the deceased’s family. He states, “We want our coroners and medical examiners to know that the law is on their side… Furthermore, I call upon legislation to tighten up loopholes in our public records law so that we can protect personal privacy and decency.” Hodges began the fight after he learned about the constant media invasion of requests for the autopsy photos of Dale Earnhardt and the Earnhardt family’s quest for legal action to prevent such a release.
Hodges believes that the next of kin should not have to worry about the release of autopsy information, and is taking action now to make sure that this issue doesn’t arise in South Carolina. The article also cites Richland County Coroner Gary Watts, who believes that Hodges’ plan would not change the way the coroner’s office operates normally, as only a specific amount of information is released to the media unless there is a request from a family member. If this policy is broken, the coroner’s office could face legal ramifications.
Analysis
In his book, Ethics in Journalism, Ron Smith features a quote from Mike Wallace on CBS’s 60 Minutes that states that he has “lone come to the conclusion that the best investigative reporters are compassionate. That it takes compassion to do the job well. It doesn’t mean that you’re soft. It doesn’t mean that you look the other way. It means that you treat people respectively.” (216)
This quote represents the perspective a journalist should have when obtaining information for and writing a report. A reporter should ultimately have respect for the people involved, no matter what the story. It should especially be true in tough situations such as grief and loss.
In this scenario, especially in the USA Today article, the journalists could be seen as vultures. Despite the requests of Earnhardt’s wife to not obtain and publish the autopsy photos, journalists in the media still requested and pushed for the photos, stating that they had a legal right to them as they were considered public records. Based on the quote above about privacy, I think Hodge’s views on the issue follow along with Smith’s. Although he can see the reasoning behind the reporters’ requests for the information, he believes that it should be a decision between the medical examiners, coroners, and ultimately the families to determine whether that information should be released; it should not be a fundamental right for the journalists to simply have the information.
But, one can look at the story from the reporters’ perspective. With such a highly publicized death, there is much competition between the news sources to cover the event. Also, as Smith states, “ Journalists must cover [big events] and their aftermaths; readers and viewers expect to find these stories” (218). In this case, many readers and viewers expected there to be news on the death of Earnhardt as well as continuing coverage of the investigation behind it. Because it was not only highly publicized but also controversial because of the question behind his death, many people were following the story and want as much information as possible to be able to draw their own conclusions about it.
The Journalists also have to question whether or not the ends justify the means. With the USA today story, prior to the death of Dale Earnhardt the Sentinel had published a 3 part series on safety in the auto racing industry and the way officials in the industry were handling it. That series had spawned because of the large amount of recent deaths in the industry and how the HANS device could have saved the lives of several of the drivers who appeared to have died from skull fractures. The request of the autopsy photos was not only to publish a story, but to gather more information in order to make a stronger case about a larger, overarching issue of safety in NASCAR. By drawing attention to this issue and covering the safety hazards of NASCAR, the Sentinel and other media outlets might be able to bring change to the safety guidelines of NASCAR and be able to prevent future deaths and injuries from occurring. This is similar to the Firestone tire case at the beginning of Smith’s book. Because of KHOU’s relentless coverage of the faulty Firestone tires, it caused the National Highway Safety Agency to open an investigation against Firestone, ultimately drawing the same conclusions as KHOU. This led to more than 6.5 million tires being recalled by Firestone, potentially saving many lives. (Smith 6)
In this case, the Sentinel has the potential to do the same thing. Even though it may be seen as intruding, it might be necessary in order to gain enough information to make a compelling enough story for higher officials to get involved, which might lead to tighter safety guidelines and rules for NASCAR and saving the lives of other drivers.
It’s cases like these that make it hard to determine if there is a clear “right” and “wrong” way to report these stories, and if there is a clear boundary line for journalists and their subjects. I can understand both sides as well, the need for privacy in order to protect the dignity of the deceased and his family, as well as the push for the photos in order to protect others in the field. But, I think in this case, Hodge’s ultimately had the right idea—it should not be a right, but a privilege to obtain autopsy photos. The decision should not be made by the law but by medical examiners, coroners, and the family. While there is a need to protect others involved, the information obtained is not extremely vital to their case and does not prevent them per say from continuing their coverage on the safety of NASCAR. Also, I believe that they didn’t need the photos after a medical examiner stated that Earnhardt’s death was caused by a seatbelt malfunction and a HANS device would not have saved his life. Although I can understand the desire to “see for themselves”, I think this is the line that should stop the journalists from pressing the issue in order to respect the privacy of the family.
Bibliography
"Earnhardt tragedy turns into debate over privacy." USATODAY.com. 19 June 2001. 25 Apr. 2009
Matchette, Valerie. "Hodges: Don’t publish autopsy photos." The Daily Gamecock. 7 Mar. 2001. University of South Carolina. 25 Apr. 2009
Smith, Ron F. & Goodwin, H. Eugene; Ethics in Journalism; Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1999
No comments:
Post a Comment