I recall a tragic story we covered last year and it makes me wonder, when is it ethical to intervene?
On Jul. 30, 2008. 22 year old Tim McLean, was riding a Greyhound bus from Edmonton to Winnipeg (McLean's hometown), McLean was relaxing, listening to his headphones
, and minding his own business
. As the bus was in rural Manitoba about 30 minutes from Winnipeg, McLean was stabbed repeatedly and eventually beheaded by Vince Weiguang Li
(a schizophrenic who was hearing voices that told him to murder McLean). As soon as a young man sitting in the row infront of McLean, realized Li was repeatedly stabbing McLean, the young man urged fellow passengers flee the bus, while the driver and the young man stayed to see if they could do anything to help McLean.
When they realized they couldn't help, and saw McLean's head - the driver and young man went outside for their safety as Li came running with the hunting knife he used to cannibalize McLean. The driver disabled the bus to prevent Li
from driving away so the police could make an arrest and investigate. Passengers were abhorred and petrified, as it was a very heinous murder.
The Ethical Issue
The breaking news of the Greyhound beheading instantly made multi-national headlines. Tim McLean's family was left in the dark, watching the story unfold from their Winnipeg home, amongst many other frightened citizens - wondering who the victim maybe. The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police (a.k.a Canada's FBI)) neglected notifying the McLean family to tell them Tim, was infact the victim of the Greyhound beheading
. Instead the media broke the news to the family by knocking on Mr. McLean's door, explaining how McLean was the victim and requesting an interview
(Media contacts victim's family before RCMP)
. The McLean family was mortified, appalled by the media, and enraged at the RCMP for not notifying the family about their beloved sons death. It was very tragic.
This case brings up a few questions, when is it ethical to consider interviewing victims families in such devastating situations? How do we confirm the police identified the victim? And notified the family?
-30-
Re Megan's Comment:
I think the media knew about the greyhound beheading since they simultaneously arrived at the scene, with the police. In Toronto, Ontario (where I live) and I think all across Canada, we have access to the police radio to cover emerging stories immediately. I agree with you since the media should have waited until they confirmed the RCMP spoke to the family.
Anyway here is a clip from CTV with a little more detail to put it in perspective and another article. There was not too much detail about "how the media" knocked on the door. But the family is clearly aggravated by how journalists handled the situation.
6 comments:
I was hoping it would mention in one of the links exactly how it was the journalist who knocked their door knew the identity of the victim, but I didn't find that information. I can only assume it was an inside police source? If the police had not made a public announcement via the media outlets (which they clearly hadn't yet), then that is a signal not to approach any family. This is a blatant case of very bad judgment. I think most journalists would see the line and that they were crossing it in a situation like this. If there really was a question if the family knew yet (even though it seems obvious they wouldn't), the journalist should have cleared this information with their inside source before hunting down the family's address. What did they expect!?
On second thought, in spite of how the media knocked on the door. I think the media should have verified that the family had been notified and then initially interviewed the RCMP dealing with the investigation -- to develop their story. I think the media should not have requested an interview with the family for 3 or 4 days, until the family had a chance to grasp this horrific ordeal -- then they should have interviewed the family.
Even if the family had been notified by the Mounties, I still wouldn't have just shown up at their doorstep while the situation was still unfolding. Didn't they think at the very least a phone call would have sufficed? Out of respect for the family whose son was just abruptly and brutally beheaded in a freakish manner for all the world to see?
The actions of the reporters were too hasty and irresponsible. Human decency always needs to be taken into account.
It is certainly not unusual for the media to be at the doorstep of a family who was recently a victim of violence.When watching news programs,it is always amazing to me how families of victims can speak to the media ,in their time of deepest sorrow and mourning.But they do.I cannot begin to speculate where they get the courage ,or even more important why they even need to speak to the media.However, most times the families of victims sadly are very compliant in being interviewed.
In this case the media,jumped in immediately trying to get an interview as they always do!The emotional state of the family was not an issue.Getting the story , is the priority , in the media.When have you ever seen a victim's family interviewed 2 days after the crime? Judgement and ethics never seem to matter.
If the media thought the family had been notified ,then they were doing what they have been expected to do ,in situations like this,however appalling it may be.This seems to be a common practice in journalism.However in this case ,if the media did not know if the family was informed, it seems that the line of ethics could have been crossed.
I agree with Michael, trying to interview family members so soon after a tragedy like this crosses the lines of human decency. And if the reporters knew that the family hadn't been contacted by the police, then I think it crosses ethical lines for reporters to make the notification and try to get an interview at the same time. It is ethically wrong to try to memorialize a family's grief without giving priority to the privacy of the victim's family.
The question begs to be asked, what took the police so long?
Post a Comment