To all fellow burgeoning reporters, here’s a piece of journo-ethics wisdom I’ve gleaned in my 2.75 years as a Medill student: If, when conducting an interview, you find yourself smirking with a snide I-know-something-you-don’t grin, you are probably breaching some sort of ethical boundary. If you need a visual aid for said facial expression, please watch any of Charlie Sheen’s interviewers from last month.
Sheen’s babble about tiger blood and #WINNING skyrocketed him to a position of fervent public interest, as well as much speculation as to whether or not he has bipolar disorder or is still using drugs. His on-air drug tests have turned up negative and his response, “I’m bi-winning,” is the title for the video clip ABC put on YouTube. The segment of Andrea Canning’s “Today Show” interview with Sheen has more than nine million views. Here’s my question: If the reporter has to ask if the subject is in the midst of a manic episode, should the interview even be happening? Doesn’t that mean that the crux of the story is, “This guy’s acting weird, and we want to figure out why”? Isn’t that something that’s supposed to happen, like, in private? With a doctor?
In its ethics code, the Society of Professional Journalists makes no statement about whether it’s right or wrong to interview those who have mood disorders or are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It does say that journalists should “show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.”
Of course, this is tough when it comes to media. The stuff of lurid curiosity makes for great television. I consider myself lucky that networks like A&E, Bravo and TLC seem not to adhere to the SPJ’s standards when developing their reality programming. Where would I be without “Hoarders” and “The Real Housewives”? The shows are fascinating, to be sure, but are they right?
Reality television is, of course, fraught with ethical dubiousness. It is meant to be treated as entertainment, not journalism. But is it really okay for me to watch a psychologist diagnose someone as a compulsive hoarder and then take me and all my lurid curiosity into the slovenly depths of a home? Is it okay for me to watch Kelly Killoren-Bensimon be interviewed with the rest of the “Real” housewives of New York and descend into an irrational, paranoid rant? When someone is clearly, or even only possibly, not in tip-top mental shape, is a media platform really what he or she needs?
Reality television producers are not required to “minimize harm,” as the SPJ says journalists are. What’s right and wrong doesn’t matter as much when it comes to “Hoarders.” It’s like eating foie gras – enjoyable, as long as you don’t think about it. But even if we decide that such access to distressed people is acceptable in the realm of trashy TV, it shouldn’t be acceptable in journalism. Journalists are held to a higher standard than reality television producers because we, the consumers, lend more validity to the information they espouse. It seems inappropriate for reporters to shine a spotlight on Sheen while simultaneously throwing around diagnoses. I think somewhere along the blurry line between journalism and entertainment, we may have gotten confused about which situations require the minimization of harm.
Sheen’s TV appearances last month, as well as his own cryptically epic Twitter feed, gave rise to his “Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat is Not an Option Show,” which came through Chicago on Monday. Having been booed in Detroit, where the show opened, Sheen revamped his act and met with a much more receptive audience in Chicago. Twitter can cut out the journalistic middle man, so any follower has the opportunity to exercise news judgment. Reporters, in turn, set an example for what is deserving of our attention. I wonder if all this limelight we’ve decided to throw at Sheen is simply adding height what could turn out to be a bad fall.
Ali Elkin is a Medill junior. She can be reached at [email protected]. Illustration by Sophie Jenkins.
