Loading

Framing Journalists for Their Own Abuse: The Threats of Alternative Approaches to Press-Directed Violence

Imagine you’ve been tapped to appear on a special, social justice-themed episode of “Family Feud.”  “Name a human rights issue,” Steve Harvey declares.  Almost certainly, the survey will not say “violence against journalists.”  Press-directed antagonism is a mere blip on the public’s radar, especially when the victims are non-Western reporters.  Even aware news audiences may not consider this brutality through a human rights lens.Yet, three alternative frameworks—capability, utilitarianism and what I’ll call “mistaken identity”—prove problematic.  They may lead critics to victim-blame the media, prioritize the public’s rights to knowledge over the press’ rights to life and deny journalists’ altruistic intents.  Indeed, their “moral” arguments produce immoral effects under the unique circumstances of violence against the press.  Ultimately, they reinforce the value—if not necessity—of a human rights approach to reporter-directed antagonism.First, the capability approach holds that “freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance and…[should] be understood in terms of people’s capabilities.”  This definition immediately suggests the framework’s unsuitability for evaluating brutality against reporters.  Indeed, it may run counter to a common journalistic tendency: self-sacrifice in pursuit of honest and comprehensive coverage.According to legendary reporter Marie Colvin, partially blinded by shrapnel in Sri Lanka and later killed in Syria, “Simply: there’s no way to cover war properly without risk…Covering a war means going into places torn by chaos, destruction, death and pain, and trying to bear witness to that.”  If journalists believe reporting the truth is of greater “moral importance” than “freedom to achieve well-being,” is the capability framework capable of defending them?  Perhaps not.  Citing the approach, media critics might argue reporters deserve the repercussions of spurning safety. 

 

Turkish journalists holding photographs of their colleagues who lost their lives in Syria recently, from left, Anthony Shadid, Remi Ochlik and Marie Colvin, stage a protest outside the Syrian embassy in Ankara, Turkey, Friday, Feb. 24, 2012. They protested against the Syrian regime and called on the U.N. and democratic countries to protect journalists working in Syria.(AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)
 
 
Imagine you’ve been tapped to appear on a special, social justice-themed episode of “Family Feud.”  “Name a human rights issue,” Steve Harvey declares.  Almost certainly, the survey will not say “violence against journalists.”  Press-directed antagonism is a mere blip on the public’s radar, especially when the victims are non-Western reporters.  Even aware news audiences may not consider this brutality through a human rights lens.Yet, three alternative frameworks—capability, utilitarianism and what I’ll call “mistaken identity”—prove problematic.  They may lead critics to victim-blame the media, prioritize the public’s rights to knowledge over the press’ rights to life and deny journalists’ altruistic intents.  Indeed, their “moral” arguments produce immoral effects under the unique circumstances of violence against the press.  Ultimately, they reinforce the value—if not necessity—of a human rights approach to reporter-directed antagonism.First, the capability approach holds that “freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance and…[should] be understood in terms of people’s capabilities.”  This definition immediately suggests the framework’s unsuitability for evaluating brutality against reporters.  Indeed, it may run counter to a common journalistic tendency: self-sacrifice in pursuit of honest and comprehensive coverage.According to legendary reporter Marie Colvin, partially blinded by shrapnel in Sri Lanka and later killed in Syria, “Simply: there’s no way to cover war properly without risk…Covering a war means going into places torn by chaos, destruction, death and pain, and trying to bear witness to that.”  If journalists believe reporting the truth is of greater “moral importance” than “freedom to achieve well-being,” is the capability framework capable of defending them?  Perhaps not.  Citing the approach, media critics might argue reporters deserve the repercussions of spurning safety. 

Meesha Shafi, a member of Pakistani pop group ‘Overload’ perform during a musical concert in Islamabad, Pakistan on Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010. The musical concert organized by U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and Pakistan National Council of Arts to pay tribute to slain American journalist Daniel Pearl. Pearl was kidnapped and slain while researching a story on Islamic militancy in Karachi in 2002. (AP Photo/Anjum Naveed)
 
 
Not dissimilarly, President Donald Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric fuels societal distrust of allegedly immoral reporters.  Losing the confidence of readers—for whom they risk their lives—robs media workers of their most natural advocates.  British reporter Alastair Campbell has warned of the threats diminishing audience support pose, arguing “The bad news for journalists today is that the media, however seriously people who are in the public eye take it, is not taken as seriously as it once was by the public.”“Mistaken identity” frameworks may even transform the public into one of the press’ most ardent enemies.  Indeed, in January, Michigan man Brandon Griesemer made multiple threats against CNN.  His “mistaken identity” perception of journalism was clear.  “Fake news,” Griesemer said in one phone call.  “I’m coming to gun you all down.”Ultimately, human rights-based approaches easily inspire criticism when we fail to analyze them alongside other frameworks.  Yet, for all of their shortcomings—including vague theoretical protections and inadequate practical applications—they remain the most effective way to interpret and address press-directed antagonism.  Evaluating the capability, utilitarianism and “mistaken identity” frameworks makes this clear.Indeed, these alternatives simply do not hold up under the unique moral dynamics of brutality against the media.  They augment antagonism and assign journalists complicity in the abuse they endure.  In contrast, rights-based approaches promote justice, dignity and peace, much like the reporters they can help protect.  Name a human rights issue?  My survey says “violence against journalists.” 

Amelia Cheatham is a T’18 Alumna and was a 2017-2018 Global Human Rights Scholar for the Institute. 

All posts by