Wed, 14 October 2026
Change Font Sizes:
Wed, 14 October 2026
Disaster reveals life's vulnerability and the morality of the society that witnesses it. In the aftermath of the Bhotekoshi disaster, people who lost everything had to relive their ordeal again and again for the camera. While the journalists might have seen this as a good source of content, it could have been an intrusion into the personal tragedy of people who were struggling to cope with a loss that they could hardly comprehend. The question then arises: Has journalism become so engrossed in capturing emotions that it has forgotten its responsibility to humanity? Journalism is necessary during disasters. It informs the public about the event, exposes flaws in institutions, and gives voice to disaster victims whose voices would otherwise go unheard. But while it is important for the public to be informed about what transpired during a disaster and the failings therein, it should not be allowed to intrude into people’s pain.
Repetition of interviews with the victims indicates the disturbing contradiction within contemporary journalism. While journalists may think it necessary to interview the victim, each interview puts the same vulnerable person through multiple traumatic experiences. Interviewing a mourning mother of dead children or making a survivor relive the experience of being dragged away from his/her house would break down the victim's time and again. The emotional impact should be taken into consideration while creating such stories to increase likes and views on social media. Repetition of the same sad story solely for attracting viewers' attention turns human misery into a commodity.
Unfortunately, it is not only professional journalists who make such mistakes. Nowadays, due to the wide availability of smartphones and social networks, any person can make a video. At sites of accidents, there are individuals taking out their cameras before helping the victims. Distress turns into entertainment, tragedy turns into a viral video, and a suffering person turns into an object for the public eye. While video documentation can help to reveal some wrongdoing and provide evidence, shooting at the site of an accident without thinking about the victim's dignity can increase his/her pain. The implications are both ethical and psychological. Repeated remembrance of traumas is distressing, and the distribution of embarrassing or painful clips leaves victims open to prolonged public humiliation.
The hospital is meant to be a place where patients are treated and rehabilitated. There is no room for content creation here. And an interview of a critically ill patient without any valid reason is evidence of an inability to differentiate between proper journalism and unnecessary invasion into people's lives. That means media companies should stop being sensational and apply trauma-informed reporting. Journalists should be trained on how to conduct interviews with vulnerable individuals, should obtain their informed consent, should honour refusals, and should avoid repetitive interviews.
Editors should monitor emotionally charged headlines, thumbnails, and videos. Consent from an individual who is overwhelmed by the situation or cannot comprehend the consequences of their actions is insufficient. The public is another crucial stakeholder here. Every single click, like, and comment could be used for either ethical journalism or for exploiting people’s pain. The essence of ethical journalism is sharing the facts without creating a second tragedy. Journalists must know that their duty is to share the facts without being indifferent to the victims.
How did you feel after reading this news?