By Francis Allan L. Angelo
The cornerstone of journalism has always been credibility and the trust between the public and the media. This bond is sacred; it’s what makes journalism not just a profession, but a pillar of democracy.
In a world increasingly driven by clicks and views, some media organizations have adopted the ‘clickbait’ strategy, publishing content with sensationalized headlines that often promise more than they deliver.
The recent conversation about the ethics of ‘digital death knocks’—the practice of mining social media profiles of victims and their families for stories—shines a light on a pervasive issue corroding this trust.
The practice, highlighted in a recent article by The Conversation, raises the question: just because information is publicly accessible, does that make it fair game for dissemination in the news?
The argument for the affirmative states that social media profiles can provide a more nuanced portrait of individuals involved in newsworthy events, potentially offering insights into the story that would otherwise be unavailable. Yet, one must ask: what are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of ‘a good story’?
Where do we draw the line between informing the public and exploiting personal grief? The instant access to victims’ lives via Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram might give the illusion of familiarity and consent, but it is an illusion, nonetheless. Behind each picture, post, or video are individuals who, in their most vulnerable moments, are not in the position to grant or deny permission for their content to be broadcasted.
In Iloilo, where the culture is steeped in respect for the dead and consideration for the living, this intrusive journalism risks eroding the trust between the media and the public.
Imagine the compounded grief of losing a loved one and then seeing their most private moments dissected on the evening news or viral on social media, without consent. This is not the compassionate spirit that defines us.
The article from The Conversation lays bare an uncomfortable truth: the rush for virality is eclipsing the solemn responsibility of ethical reporting. When a tragedy strikes and becomes a source for clickbait, journalism’s role as the fourth estate is undermined.
Mining the social media accounts of those who have passed away or their grieving families for clickable content is not just a questionable invasion of privacy, it’s a departure from the media’s duty to inform with dignity and respect.
For journalists, the path to a story is paved with decisions. Each decision to publish private details from a social media profile without consent is a step away from journalistic integrity and a step towards voyeurism. The clickbait attitude suggests that the end goal of higher engagement metrics justifies the means, even if the means involve exploiting personal loss.
Clickbait strategies may yield short-term gains in website traffic, but they also erode long-term trust in media organizations. Readers become disillusioned when they realize a headline is misleading or that content is disrespectful to victims and their families. Over time, disappointment turns into distrust, and readers turn away, seeking sources that honor the unspoken contract of trustworthiness.
The effects of clickbait are not merely abstract ethical considerations; they are tangibly reflected in the public’s declining trust in the media. The Edelman Trust Barometer consistently shows a decline in trust across all institutions, with media often near the bottom. Part of this decline can be attributed to the perception that journalists are more interested in clicks than in truth.
Furthermore, the ethical tightrope becomes even trickier when it comes to information accuracy. Social media is a breeding ground for misinformation. Journalists have a responsibility to verify information, and mining unconfirmed social media posts can lead to the spread of inaccuracies, jeopardizing the credibility of news organizations.
It’s imperative for the future of journalism that media organizations resist the clickbait temptation and reaffirm their commitment to credible, compassionate storytelling. This means resisting the urge to turn personal tragedies into public spectacles. The focus should be on stories that inform, engage, and respect both subjects and readers.
The practice of digital death knocks is a litmus test for media ethics in the digital age. The choices made by journalists and media outlets in these situations are a demonstration of their values. Clickbait strategies, especially when they involve the private lives of individuals at their most vulnerable, can lead to a ‘boy who cried wolf’ scenario, where even legitimate, well-researched stories are met with skepticism.
As consumers of news, we must demand better. As practitioners of journalism, we must do better. Credibility and trust are not just the currency of our profession; they are the bedrock upon which it stands. The clickbait attitude is a debt against this trust, and it is time to settle that debt before it becomes insurmountable. The integrity of journalism depends on it.
So, what’s the solution? Journalists must prioritize sensitivity and respect for privacy, especially during tragedies. Seeking permission to use information, even from public profiles, demonstrates empathy and builds trust. When in doubt, fact-checking social media information is paramount.
Ultimately, the media’s role is to inform, not exploit. By prioritizing human dignity and journalistic integrity, we can rebuild trust with the public we serve. The human cost of a story can never be an afterthought.
For queries, tips, and leads, email: franzangelo@protonmail.com
