When the youngest meet the media

Even if a journalist has to be objective and impartial in everything he writes, it doesn’t mean he should be insensitive and discriminatory. The work of a journalist is also to report in a way that the vulnerable groups of the society are not oppressed by the society.

Some groups of the society are considered as vulnerable, either because they have seen their ability to control their life reduced or because of who they are. These groups are defined by Chris Frost in Journalism, Ethics and Regulation (3rd Edition): “those who have their power reduced because of circumstances include victims of disaster, domestic abuse, crime, seriously sick. Those with limited power because of who they are include children and ethnic minorities.” When writing about one of them, and even if journalists can be critical on a group of people, they also have to be truthful and careful on words and pictures. Both are really powerful weapons and they can either give an honest representation or a discriminatory report.

If we take the example of children, they can be considered as the “luckiest” group because they are the only ones that are protected by laws. The Rights of Child by the United Nations and IPSO are regulating the press when it is dealing with case including children. IPSO even have a specific paragraph for children in sex cases.

However, even with all these laws and regulations, there still exist some gaps, particularly concerning the naming of children when they are not the victims but the offenders. IPSO prevent the naming of children involve in a crime, but journalists have been naming juveniles for ages. It is however true that it is currently evolving, and that, regulations have become stricter about it. In the BBC’s rules on anti social behaviour, journalists must consider “whether or not to name a minor in a story” or “whether or not to interview a minor in pursuit of a story”.

Whether or not to name a minor in a story?

I would be against naming a minor in articles, even if they broke the law, because naming them can have really important consequences on their future. They are innocent and make mistakes, but does it mean that it has to affect them for the rest of their life? Does it mean that their actions must follow them everywhere in the future? Also there might be a sense of unfairness when reporting about a child because it might not be necessary, but also because they cannot defend themselves or reply to the article.

Whether or not to interview a minor in pursuit of a story?

Most of the regulations that exist, say that, to interview a child, you have to have the permission of the parents or maybe the teacher if it is at school. Journalists consider that children can give them important information or details that older witness might not have noticed, however the youngest are also known to be really easily influenced and the information that they are giving can be inaccurate. In that case, journalists have to be careful while reporting with children as witnessed.

To learn more :

The example of a school boy who committed suicide. His dad complained to the Press Complaints Commission because the boy was a minor and his named was the first thing that was reported by the Daily Mail : dhttps://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/227141678316810240

#ethics