In a new open-access article – “Preventing intrusive grief journalism: legal, policy and practical measures” – we identify a range of legal, operational and media ethical steps which can help prevent media interest in public interest tragedy from causing the harm that often results from this kind of media behaviour.
The article starts by examining a range of legal remedies which could provide redress to family members who have been the subject of unacceptable media intrusion. Trespass to both land and the person are relevant here. A simple “No Media” sign on an outer wall or fence can revoke the implied licence to make enquiries of a householder without being guilty of trespass to land.
Harassment legislation and privacy torts are also relevant. Courts have expressly recognised that people will have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of personal grief (see eg, McKennitt v Ash [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB) [80]) and defences will often be weak. A public interest in the tragedy as a whole will not usually be enough to justify intrusive publications about grieving family. Serious questions also need to be asked about the validity of consent which is given when a person is in shock. For consent to be valid, a person must be in “a fit state to give it” (see Ali and Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC 298 (Ch) [173]). Research shows that people who have suffered the shock of a sudden bereavement often won’t be. In fact, often such people won’t be able to remember speaking to the media at all.
Legal responses are only one part of the picture, though. The article also highlights the relationship between the quality of lead organisations’ public relations and family members’ experience of the media. When official spokespeople are accessible and transparent, the media have little need to pursue families for stories. Families are more likely to get pursued in a news vacuum. Identifying people who can willingly provide an emotional angle on a story (like religious leaders or social workers) and empowering family members to protect themselves from unwanted approaches can also make a significant difference to bereaved people’s experience of the media.
The final section of the article turns of the media themselves – it examines media self-regulation and media ethics. Discussion of the latter includes critique of some of the justifications relied on by journalists to defend grief journalism practices. This starts with media claims that grieving family members find it cathartic to talk to journalists. In reality, it is difficult to find any research participants that regard unsolicited media attention in the early aftermath of disaster in a positive light. Although a bereaved person might appear eager to engage at this stage of proceedings, psychologist explain that often it is the shock talking – many regret the interaction later or, as already mentioned, can’t remember it at all. If catharsis is going to result, research shows that it will be the result of encounters with a compassionate, empathetic journalists after the initial shock of the loss has subsided.
This part of the article also challenges the idea that grief journalism is driven by audience demand. This is contrary to the results of our own survey of 1100 individuals in a range of jurisdictions – 80% of participants in that study reported trying to avoid images of bereaved relatives. More details of that research will be published in later articles.
This article concludes that if law and wider society prioritise their needs in the aftermath of disaster, bereaved individuals can get the space, care and respect that they deserve. The first step in doing that is for lawmakers, disaster responders and the media themselves recognising that there is a problem and starting to take active steps to resolve it.