Live Reporting and Ethics

Live broadcasting has proliferated in television journalism since its inception in

the 1950s. CNN successfully implemented satellite-based live broadcasts
around 1990 and covered the first Gulf war from the front lines with “flyaway
dishes” (Zelizer 1992), and this was a great spur to “all news” stations. Live
broadcasting has traditionally required specialized infrastructure and equipment
—often in the form of “outside broadcasting” (OB) and satellite links to cover
live events and upload material to the editorial system. With the emergence of
smartphones and internet connections, more or less the same operations can be
performed with an application on a mobile phone and a mobile data connection.
Better bandwidth and more stable signalling means that lightweight and mobile
equipment can replace much of the traditional equipment used in live coverage
and can thus have the potential to change the traditional workflow and work
practices of television reporters.

The qualities of the “live moment” have been studied by a number of media
scholars, notably as “witnessing” (Peters 2001), and as a historically produced
element of modern television that requires a big organization, control rooms,
etc. (Scannell 2014). Scannell (2004, 582–583) analyses the live coverage of the
September 11 events on CNN and the BBC, and describes the documentary
authority of live news. “Television coverage on the day established the truth of
what was happening and of what was being done. It came up with explanations
and anticipated future courses of action that remain unchallenged to this day.”
Scannell argues that the ordinary news routines of live broadcasting shore up
“on behalf of us all, the meaningful character of existence, even when it appears
to be collapsing in ruins before our disbelieving eyes” (Scannell 2004, 582–583;
Nyre 2007). There are various approaches to thinking about monitoring and
control of content and journalistic ethics. There is a critical need to pay attention
to particular ethical issues which arise for broadcasters, such as the challenge of
‘breaking news’ and live reporting which may lead journalists to regret the
information they transmit. The continuing introduction of new technologies also
challenges the ethical dimensions of journalistic practice. Making live coverage
easy and effortless might, for example, reduce the time the reporters have to do
the necessary ethical considerations. This can contribute to moving the
considerations normally done by journalists to other parts of the organization
and put more responsibility on editors and line-control. This can over time
challenge the autonomy and ethical responsibility of the individual journalist,
and the reporting team working together in the field.

Issues arising out of live reporting:

1. The stress on being the first one to break news

2. flamboyant and sensational presentation of ‘breaking’ and live news

(provocative questions, statements, graphics)

3. No proper fact-checking before transmitting information

4. Compromising source integrity

5. Compromising work by security agencies or divulging sensitive information

Live reports are seen as the epitome of connecting audiences and events, live
reports have an authenticity that comes from reporters’ real-time proximity to
events, the unpredictability of broadcasting events outside of the newsroom.
Live reporting is also logistically challenging, giving them an ability to
demonstrate their technological sophistication. Live reporting is criticised as
there isn’t much explanation of events or what they mean, and there is non-stop
information without interpretation and sometimes non-stop interpretation
without information. While for live reporting, it is usually believed that it is
unpredicted, unscripted and spontaneous, the reporting still heavily relies on
official sources to frame and interpret events. Things to figure out before live
reporting:

 There is no script, use bullet points to guide the flow of the information
you’re delivering and practice before you go live.

 Make a game plan for the live shot. Will you be moving around, showing the
audience something or doing something on camera?

 “It’s OK to say you don’t know something and to say, ‘Here’s what we’re
going to find out.” Rather than speculating or making it

Ethical Issues with Live Streaming:

It might seem beneficial that there is no longer the need to time-consumingly

edit video footage into a report, but this could also be considered as a drawback
in ethical terms.

1. Live streaming takes away the chance to reconsider, evaluate and

journalistically assess news content. Traditional broadcasting, especially if not
live, always operates in conjunction with an editorial board, researchers, and
technical experts, whereas with live streaming the reporter is on their own.

2. Also, and this very important in crisis coverage, an image once shown, can’t
be undone. People’s identities cannot be obscured, their faces not blurred or
blocked and filming victims goes against accepted ethical codes.

3. Furthermore, the journalist has to be careful not to disturb or interfere with

police or medical action in crisis situations. In the midst of the Brussels
lockdown that followed the Paris attacks, for example, the police asked users to
stop tweeting or live streaming about any operations taking place in Brussels, as
they could also be read by the terrorists who were still on the run. While most
trained journalists would refrain from filming ethically difficult material, live
streaming applications present a unique risk when used by citizen journalists in
terms of this moral codes.

Pros

1. Unfiltered Video Streaming: There is no censorship involved. Journalists can

provide their audience with first hand images of live events.

2. Immediacy: Real news, in real time, delivered directly to the audience.

3. Flexibility: All that is needed is a smartphone and journalists are able to

report from anywhere in the world – as long as there is a stable internet
connection.

4. Potential positive impact for developing countries: News content can be

produced very easily and cheaply with live streaming apps. This makes it
affordable for smaller media outlets and freelance journalists, especially in rural
areas or developing countries.

5. Audience engagement:– useful for audience questions, especially in interview

situations.

6. Empowering citizen journalists: Entirely free from camera teams or editorial

boards, citizen journalists can stream live events to their followers.

Cons

1 No editorial control: Quality journalism rests on a foundation of journalistic

values and ethics. Live streaming the news takes away the editorial control of
reassessing, fact-checking and researching for a deeper understanding and
dedication to the truth.

2. No control over what could happen in live crisis situations: Especially if the
outcome of an emergency situation is unclear, in the case of a terror attack or a
natural disaster for instance, live streaming the events can lead to unfiltered
footage of victims or their families being broadcast.

3 Dependency on internet connections: While wireless internet connection is

mostly stable in western countries, it is hard to secure live streaming in more
rural areas or in developing countries. Also, especially in emergency situations
where large crowds of people are trying to access social media feeds the internet
connection is likely lack of speed and stability. In the case of a natural disaster
the infrastructure in a certain region might be so damaged that the internet goes
down all together.

4. Potential interference with emergency operations: Following the Paris

attacks, the French police had to ask Twitter users to refrain from tweeting or
periscoping the events in front of the Bataclan, as the terrorists could have
access to the footage as well. In emergency situations it is more important to
guarantee that police and other action forces can work without interference from
journalists. Live-blogging by journalists For newspapers, this can be their
version of live-reporting On fast-moving stories, live blogs give the ability to
post significant developments quickly – more quickly than editing and re-
editing a news article. They also allow us to link out to other coverage, to
include comments from Twitter and Facebook, to display multimedia (pictures,
video and audio), and to include our audience in the comments below the line –
all in one place. Neil McIntosh, the online editor of the Wall Street Journal
Europe, says: "It's a form that's charming in its directness; at its best it generally
does away with any writerly conceits, and demands the author just get on with
telling you what's just happened." But there are drawbacks: on stories without a
defined timescale, such as the Arab Spring uprisings, live blogs can get long
and confusing. Robert Mackey, who writes live news blogs for the New York
Times, while clearly an advocate, warns: "You are more or less providing
readers with raw material rather than telling them a story. You also tend to get
swept up in the rush of events, and don't have nearly as much time as you'd like
to think about what's happening and make connections, or write any sort of
news analysis." They require careful, continuous signposting to guide the reader
to the story's main points. When comments run into the hundreds, they need
curating and managing. If done badly, they can descend into a mishmash of
tweets and comments without context. They can be too easily deployed by
editors on stories to which the format is not suited. And the name, live blogging,
does not helpfully describe the format and suggests triviality. Almost everyone
involved in live blogging sees the drawbacks. The potential for confusion, and
the difficulty that users can encounter if they come across a live blog in the
middle of a story, is clear.

Case Studies

1. 26/11 Case : 8. The coverage of 26/11 attacks by the television channels

in India came under severe criticism for turning a blind eye to the safety
of the hostages, the security of the rescuers and above all the national
interest. While all the other attack points were freed from terrorists by the
28th morning, the Taj Hotel remained under the control of the terrorists.
The television coverage helped the terrorists by showing everything in
their live coverage from the vantage point of the rescuers to the possible
strategies and measures to be adopted by the National Security Guards in
the “Operation Black Tornado” without bothering about the impact it
would have on the security concerns and delaying the rescue process. The
sensationalism of live coverage of a rescue mission assisted a buoyant
viewership which perhaps goaded the news channels to plan their telecast
in the said manner. Neelamalar, Chitra and Darwin (2009)8 concluded
that the newspapers’ coverage of the 26/11 terror attacks was more
balanced and ethical than that of electronic media. But this can be
attributed to the nature of the print medium which had time to verify and
present the relevant facts and stories, unlike the television channels which
had to rush with their reports and had to always concentrate on ‘being the
first in the race'. Neelamalar, Chitra and Darwin (2009)9 stated that there
was strong opposition to the way the electronic media sensationalized the
attacks and a necessity to regulate media content during emergencies was
felt. The Indian government chose to respect press freedom and abstained
from regulatory measure but the News Broadcasters’ Association (NBA)
of India developed a code to be adhered to in the time of emergencies.
This instance clearly shows the media’s flouting of ethical norms.