Violated or Comforted - and Then Abandoned: Ethical Dimensions of Relationships Between Journalists and Vulnerable News Sources

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on ethical challenges for journalists when contacting and interviewing vulnerable sources about grief in connection with crime and accidents. The study is based on in-depth interviews, with bereaved closely related to the deceased, about their encounters with journalists. Results suggest editorial structures can contribute to violations, and the media attention can disturb and postpone the grieving process. When journalists no longer are interested, mourning relatives can feel abandoned. Paradoxically, proper ethical behavior from journalists can make this worse since respondents can feel more abandoned and even betrayed by journalists they consider sympathetic.

This article addresses the responsibility journalists take on when they interact with vulnerable bereaved as interviewees. The latter are rarely present in previous research, which mainly has focused on journalists’ perceptions of a task considered delicate and sometimes unpleasant. This article about ethical challenges emphasizes the bereaved – their experiences, attitudes and thoughts on being interviewed on matters that are personally linked to life and death.

News about crimes and accidents has always had a high news value factor (Ghersetti, 2012; Jewkes, 2011; O’Neill & Harcup, 2009), but also the grief manifestations linked to sudden and dramatic deaths have become a more common theme for news coverage (Kitch & Hume, 2008, p. xi). To produce a story about mourning is more or less required when the newsrooms of today decide on follow ups after a spectacular crime or accident.

This is the departure point for this article: the journalistic coverage of grief in connection with unexpected and often violent deaths. In these cases, journalists “need” bereaved interviewees, with preferably as close relation to the deceased as possible. People in grief, with little or no experience of participating in journalism, can then be singled out for interviews. They are expected to talk about what happened and share their emotions.

Journalists’ encounters with these bereaved interviewees must be seen as ethical challenges, but there are few studies about how the interviewees perceive the participation and publicity – both in general and with ethical aspects in focus. This article is based on a Swedish study and explores ethical issues where in-depth interviews were made with the bereaved. The theoretical perspectives concern ethical and moral positions, especially ethics of proximity applied on journalistic conditions (Bjerke, 2009; Brurås, 2009; Rasmussen, 2001), but also more psychologically oriented research on grieving processes, and how these can be affected by the involvement in journalism (A. Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2008). The aspects structure and time run as two threads both through the discussion of the chosen theories and previous research, and in the analysis of the empirical material. Also to bear in mind is that reactions to grief and how it affects encounters with journalists are very individual (A. Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2008; Blinded; Newton, 2011).

The aim of the study presented in this article was to explore and discuss the ethical challenges in journalism about grief in connection with crime and accidents. The research questions are:

• How are the ethical aspects of journalistic working methods perceived by those who have participated as mourners in journalism about grief?

• How do the participants reflect on their relationships to journalists?

The grieving process

Scholars in psychiatry and psychology usually describe grieving as a process involving several stages or phases; from initial shock to acceptance and eventually reorientation. Contemporary research claims that not all mourners follow the same pattern or necessarily pass all phases. Grieving is something individual, but scholars agree that both the process and the grief itself can become problematic and complicated when a close relative is lost in dramatic and/or violent circumstances. In such contexts the period immediately following the death is often critical, traumatic and one of shock. Besides physical reactions, such as dizziness, are feelings of unreality and an altered sense of time. In shock, individuals can appear calm and collected although there is chaos under the surface (Cullberg, 2006; Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2008). Psychologically oriented research claims that bereaved in the acute phase may need to be protected from intrusive media monitoring; at the same time, studies show that most of the journalistic interviews with bereaved take place during the first period after the death and surviving relatives can find it difficult to fend off reporters (Forsberg, 2015; Jemphrey & Berrington, 2000; Shearer, 1991). This can be seen through the lens of time: There is a discrepancy between the longer grief process and the demands of the news cycle. But reactions to journalists and their contacts are also individual. Scholars who have interviewed the afflicted or the bereaved have shown that participation in news reports of crime and accidents can have both good and bad effects. On the positive side, participation can contribute to the arrest and trial of an assailant, or letting people find out what has happened and thus encourage sympathy with the afflicted. On the negative side, reports that the interviewee considers intrusive or insensitive can cause suffering to the afflicted and to the next of kin, and can be perceived as not doing any good by contributing to the work of the police or warning the public. Also considered negative are publications in which those involved had no influence over what was reported (Newton, 2011; Shearer, 1991; Sykes, 2003; Walsh-Childers, Lewis, & Neely, 2011). This ambivalence is also acknowledged by journalists. Studies where journalists are interviewed show that in their encounters with those affected, journalists find that those who are asked to participate can become upset and angry, but they also meet relatives who are perceived keen to be interviewed and have their story heard (Berrington & Jemphrey, 2003).

Journalists often experience ‘death-knock journalism’ as difficult assignments. Interviews are often delicate and unpredictable situations in which also reporters can experience traumatic stress and feel guilty because of the lack of a direct helping role (Browne, Evangeli, & Greenberg, 2012; Englund, 2008). Besides these more individual oriented aspects, a structural approach can also be helpful to understand and use previous research as a base for analysis. Relatives and eyewitnesses are seen as important sources for journalists who can then write about the reactions of the bereaved and thus give the public and their own managers what they want. Journalists can find themselves under peer pressure to carry out assignments they feel are ethically dubious and unpleasant, both for themselves and for the person being interviewed (Berrington & Jemphrey, 2003; Duncan & Newton, 2010; Koljonen, Raittala, & Väliverronen, 2011; Wigorts Yngvesson, 2006). And the fact that journalists may perceive a great need in a bereaved to talk about what happened can lead to reporters appearing to be supportive and sympathetic even if their aim is actually to get a statement and details for the story (Lundälv, 1999, p. 18; Wigorts Yngvesson, 2006, p. 107).

Ethical norms and moral dimensions

Bereaved are vulnerable, often in shock and sometimes traumatized. They can be unwilling and afraid, or willing and eager to have their stories heard. These delicate and sometimes contradictory circumstances in journalism about grief connected to unexpected and/or violent deaths can motivate a more thorough and theoretical examination of ethical dimensions of the meetings between journalists and the bereaved.

The Swedish Journalist Association’s regulations concerning press ethics and professional conduct call for discretion and respect for the victims of crime and their next of kin, and particular respect for inexperienced interviewees. This is in line with what is said in ethical codes for journalists in most countries, but scholars who have looked closer at what happens when the normative codes of conduct meet harsh editorial reality find that interviewing bereaved is an example of a situation where the usual and normative system of ethical rules can be insufficient. In a Swedish study journalists were observed and also interviewed about ethics and ethical dilemmas. The research team found that when the ethical codes are translated to praxis in the newsroom, the duty to provide information about what is deemed to be in the public interest can be given priority. Consideration for the consequences for the person who could be negatively affected by the publication of a news story can take lower priority. There is a tendency to avoid sensitive ethical discussions about vulnerable and afflicted individuals (Ekström & Nohrstedt, 1996). The balance between journalistic eagerness to humanize tragic events by including traumatized bereaved persons in news stories, and do this job with consideration for survivors, is also discussed by Simpson and Coté (2000, p. 87). They state that an apparent willingness to talk does not give reporters a license to interview anyone right after the event. Browne et al. (2012) state that ethical dilemmas for journalists can lead to behavior perceived as violating moral standards, and they identify a collision between demands for objectivity and the moral imperative to offer help.

Scholars have also looked for practice-oriented solutions of the ethical dilemma in handling vulnerable interviewees while still covering the news story effectively. Duncan and Newton (2014, pp. 69–70) suggest a model of ethical co-operation with three fundamentals: context, consent and control. Context includes the nature of the event, the type of contact and the social and emotional implications for the interviewee. Consent concerns the journalist ensuring that the interviewee understands the terms and consequences of media exposure, in traditional journalistic channels and also in possibly following social media dissemination. To achieve this, journalists must consider ceding some of their control in the interviews to the vulnerable interviewee in terms of material covered and approach taken.

If one turns to more general moral positions, some scholars argue that an ethic of care can be useful since it recognizes the vulnerability in relation to journalistic virtues such as objectivity and truth telling (Vanacker & Breslin, 2006; Walsh-Childers et al., 2011). Related to an ethic of care is an ethic of proximity. Both ethical frameworks have their roots in acknowledging the needs of the vulnerable Other (Levinas, 1985; Løgstrup, 1997), and the ethic of proximity specifically deals with the problematic aspects of closeness and distance. To balance these two approaches in dealing with news sources is an essential part of journalistic work. The ethic of proximity can thus be useful precisely when it comes to journalists’ encounters with vulnerable sources, which are exceptions to routine journalistic work. In dealing with the bereaved, journalists have greater ethical responsibilities than in conventional interviews (Bjerke, 2009; Brurås, 2009). The essence of an ethic of proximity is to have sensitivity and consideration for the individual and vulnerable Other that one encounters, and whose needs must be given precedence to one’s own, regardless if these needs are uttered or not (Levinas, 1985; Løgstrup, 1997). Brurås (2009, p. 328) exemplifies how this precedence not always must mean refraining from publishing and exposure. Since the ethic of proximity is based on seeing the individual’s needs, there may be cases where increased attention and publishing is the right thing to do.

The ethic of proximity, however, can be problematic given that meetings between journalists and their sources normally take place with the reasonable motive of them resulting in a text – a product. There is also a contradiction between such ethics and the essence of journalism and the professional identity of critical and independent truth-seeker, as well as the fact that the journalist is part of, and subordinate to, a newsroom context and a professional organization and its structures. For example: The individual journalist, who met a vulnerable interviewee, might not have control over how colleagues and editors handle the text (Brurås, 2009; Rasmussen, 2001). Rasmussen argues that journalists rather feel close to the elite sources, which they are more familiar with, and distance themselves from the grieving and suffering Other, to maintain professionalism and fulfill the assignment. Or to protect themselves from guilt (Browne et al., 2012).

Material and methodology

The material in this study is derived from a more comprehensive study with in-depth interviews with 22 respondents who had participated in grief journalism. These interviews were conducted 2011–2013. The scientific research database Retriever/Mediearkivet, which comprises almost all published news articles in the Swedish press, was used for sampling. Respondents were found through published articles about grief in connection with crime or accidents. Key sampling factors used were the stated relationship to the deceased, cause of death and degree of media attention. All cases that concerned, or could concern, suicide were excluded, as well as cases where a relative to the deceased was the perpetrator or had caused an accident. Such circumstances may demand psychological expertise in handling and conducting research interviews. Also, due to research ethics, sampling was conducted to ensure that no one was interviewed close in time to the death of the victim. Attention to ethical aspects and informed consent were carefully considered when contacting and interviewing the respondents. The interview guide focused on three areas: The respondent’s perceptions of contacts with journalists, interviews with journalists, and the published material. The overarching research questions for the comprehensive study was how people in grief experienced their encounters with and treatment by journalists, and also how people in grief used their participations in journalism for their own ends. The results showed ambivalent feelings toward journalists and their working methods. Some respondents had positive experiences while others felt they had been treated with a lack of consideration. The motives for participating as a mourner in a news text varied: redress for the deceased, the possibility to gain comfort through others sharing one’s grief, but also striving for control of what journalists wrote. In the long run respondents did not regret participation, and felt they had integrated it into their own mourning process, but these emotions had less to do with how journalists behaved than the fact that time had passed. The mourners retrospectively felt that they, by participating in the media, had stood up for their dead loved ones and also received support from others (Forsberg, 2015).

For this article, recorded interviews and literal transcriptions from a larger study have been used and re-analyzed, but with a focus on the ethical dimensions of the encounters between the bereaved and journalists. This focus also motivated the sampling for the re-analysis, which was narrowed to the 14 respondents who were closely related to victims of accidents or violent deaths. Interviews with eight respondents who had peripheral relations to the deceased where not included in this re-analysis. Sequences from the various interviews were analyzed in parallel to identify, understand and interpret patterns among different respondents. In the presentation of the thematic analysis, quotations were translated from Swedish and were – when necessary – edited by omitting details that may lead to identification. Due to research ethics aliases were used for the 14 respondents (see Table 1).

Table 1. The respondents.

Alias	Relationship to the deceased	Cause of death
Anna	Mother	Killed by drunk driver, AIM
Beatrice	Sister	Murder
Carl	Father	Murder
David	Father	Assault, AIM
Esther	Mother	Murder
Felicity	Wife	Murder
Gwen	Mother	Self-inflicted traffic accident
Greg	Father
Helen	Fiancée	Manslaughter
Iris	Daughter	Stabbed, AIM
Jessica	Sister	Murder
Kevin	Father	Self-inflicted traffic accident
Laura	Grandmother	Murder
Lewis	Grandfather

Table 1. Initial letter was chosen alphabetically by order of the interviews. Respondents interviewed at the same time have the same initial letter. Cause of death is based on the verdict. AIM is short for the offense aggravated involuntary manslaughter. The self-inflicted accidents did not lead to legal actions.

Methodological reflections

The research interviews in this qualitative study were conducted from 2011 to 2013, and did not take place close to the news event but some time – in some cases years – afterward, when the media storm had calmed down. Due to research ethics, this was the only possible way to approach the respondents and the delicate subject. But the time relevance in the data needs to be addressed. On the one hand, it is not obvious that more recent interviews would have led to a different result, even if possible bias effects would have demanded new respondents. On the other hand, revisiting empirical material from a pervious study raises questions about the validity of the results in todays’ media context. Journalism about grief arguably has not decreased or changed in any significant way since the empirical material was collected. On the contrary: news texts about grief in connection to dramatic deaths are highly viable in contemporary journalism.

Although the study has been conducted in Sweden, one can assume that the emphasized ethical challenges also are applicable in a wider context. Research conducted in, for example, Britain, Canada and Finland show that journalism about grief is handled in a similar way in the Western context (Berrington & Jemphrey, 2003; Kay, Reilly, Amend, & Kyle, 2011; Koljonen et al., 2011).

Analysis

Analysis of the in-depth interviews derived six identified themes:

• Ethical expectations: relates to the perceptions of journalists’ ethical conduct that respondents had before and in connection with their encounters with journalists.

• Violations: analyzes respondents’ perceptions of being offended, infringed or mistreated by journalists or by publications.

• Therapy: concerns situations where respondents perceive contacts with journalists as consolation or even as therapeutic sessions.

• Influence of shock: analyzes how respondents describe and understand the factor of shock related to encounters with journalists.

• Postponed grieving process: deals with the issue of how media involvement might affect grief as a process.

• Abandoned: relates to how respondents can feel when media interest decreases and journalists stop contacting them.

Ethical expectations

One respondent, who works as a nurse, said she questioned how one reporter behaved and expressed himself during the interview.

I remember talking to him about ethics, what you say and how you say it. (Anna)

Otherwise, respondents did not explicitly relate to ethical aspects when they talked about journalists’ behavior. And no one linked their media experiences to the ethical codes and rules for journalists. This is, of course, no surprise. A private citizen with little knowledge and no experience of the media cannot be expected to know that there are specific rules that stipulate respect and caution toward inexperienced interviewees and relatives of victims of crime and accidents. Instead, several of the respondents perceived that consideration was not something included in journalism. Sympathetic journalists were a pleasant surprise.

She was really all right. Although she was a journalist she did as we wished. (Lewis)

She was not annoying or intrusive, but she showed me respect. And everything was on my terms. (Helen)

She was fair. She cared about me as a person, as a mother. Perhaps she had children of her own. (Anna)

Respondents can perceive that journalists’ sympathy and consideration constituted a tactical move – for example, to secure a next interview. At first, Felicity thought it very nice when the reporter contacted her after the story was published, and wanted to know how Felicity felt.

There and then I thought it was fair and nice. But later I have thought that she maybe wanted to have me on her side, if something else turned up she might want to write more articles. (Felicity)

Other respondents hint that they had heard of journalists, like described by Lundälv (1999), using sympathy during interviews, to get a story. So had Iris, but she could not believe this about the journalists she met.

The truly good thing with them was that they were very understanding. I thought much about that, then. I did not feel like they were there for their own sake, for the story. But they sat there and really listened. And they talked to me and wanted to hear me out. (Iris)

Iris was an example of a bereaved who needed someone to talk to. She explained that family and friends mainly avoided talking about her father’s death, maybe to protect her. This may have contributed to Iris’ perception of journalists as sympathetic.

Violations

There were examples of how respondents have experienced violations by journalists who were perceived intrusive, manipulative and sometimes rude. These experiences were linked to the individual journalist’s behavior and personal characteristics.

He was the caricature of a journalist. He had absolutely no empathy, no life experience, no understanding. (Anna)

That journalist followed us and asked questions all the time, although I said I didn’t want to talk, it did not stop until I entered my car and closed the door. (Lewis)

Some of the perceived offenses can be seen as more structural, i.e., linked to work routines for journalists and editorial rooms. One informant, Kevin, agreed to be interviewed about his grief for his son killed in a traffic accident. But later, the reporter called Kevin and told him the publishing was postponed.

She told me they did not think his death, his accident was of public interest and had no news value. I thought it was a shame; I mean, I said yes to the interview. (Kevin)

One ethical problem here is that the grounds for postponing, no news value, were put forward to Kevin by the reporter. Another aspect is that with the ethic of proximity, this is an example of what Brurås (2009) describe as a case where the correct ethical approach would be to publish. This vulnerable news source had been contacted and interviewed, and had expectations of publication. In another example, the bereaved made initial contact and wanted a reporter to interview them about their daughter’s death accident. The motives were redress for the deceased and a possibility to thank locals for their support in grief. In this case, too, the correct approach under the ethic of proximity would be to meet such a request.

Another informant, Esther, was contacted by a journalist who informed her that social media circulated jokes about Esther’s murdered daughter. Since the case had raised massive media attention, the paper now wanted to do a news story on this, and they wanted comments from Esther.

She said it was of huge public interest and that it was not up to me if they should write or not. (Esther)

Esther refused to be interviewed. She did not want the mean exposure in social media legitimized by news articles in the press.

Jessica was hurt when the local paper, which she described as “our” paper, in its web edition, allowed people to write derogatory online comments about the murdered sister who died in Jessica’s arms. The younger sister was standing on the sidewalk waiting for Jessica to pick her up, when she was stabbed by an unknown man.

It was anonymous comments, lies and lots of mean stuff. They wrote that she knew the man, and why was she out at eleven o clock in the night. (Jessica)

Jessica felt betrayed by “their paper.” She thought it contributed to the violation of her sister and the family. Another example of how structures and time aspects can become ethically problematic is the violation respondents can perceive when online stories publish information about crime victims’ deaths before relatives have been notified by the police.

Rasmussen (2001, p. 167) argues that editorial structures can obstruct proximity and contribute to journalists feeling distant toward vulnerable news sources. An ethic of proximity, where consideration for the Other is an individual responsibility, becomes problematic since journalism also is a collective production process. News sources such as the respondents in this study don’t know much about news organizations, editing, how pictures are used or that news material often is handled by many people. The bereaved meet an individual journalist, a person, and when a reporter blames – as some of the respondents see it – colleagues or editors for mistakes or misunderstandings, a vulnerable and grieving interviewee can perceive this as a violation, or at least something that causes anxiety or uncertainty.

Therapy

For the vulnerable interviewees, the way an individual journalist is perceived as a person is crucial. The respondents tended to divide the journalists they met into either good guys or bad apples. And although some respondents gave examples of the latter, several respondents also told about sympathetic journalists and interviews that gave comfort. In some cases, the interviews were perceived as more or less therapeutic situations. For Iris, who felt she had no one else to talk to, the encounters with journalists were a help.

It felt very good. Finally it was just focused on daddy. I could get it out and talk about exactly how I felt. It was as if I longed for someone to ask me. (Iris)

Other respondents explicitly linked the interview situations to therapy.

You are sitting there by yourself and you do not want to see anybody. What shall you tell the ones you know? So you are looking for someone who listens, and who listens if not the media. And then you are free to tell, to get it out, because you are talking to someone appreciating it. Who tapes and writes about it, and do not contradict you. It is like seeing a psychiatrist for free. (David)

Felicity, who witnessed the murder of her husband, summarized the therapeutic side of encounters with journalists during the research interview done several years after she was widowed.

In retrospect, I think it was a way to deal with grief, to tell about it. So it helped just to get it out somehow. (Felicity)

The need for someone to talk to is described by Lundälv (1999) who also relates this to more or less cynical motives for journalists who act sympathetic toward interviewees to secure the story. This can be seen as an example of the discrepancy between the mourning process, described by Cullberg (2006) and A. Dyregrov and Dyregrov (2008) as critically in the period immediately following the death, and demands of the journalistic news cycle. Respondents told about journalists who wanted interviews the first or second day after the death. One result was that relatives in grief were most interesting for journalists in the phase when they most vulnerable.

Influence of shock

All informants described how they were in a state of shock during the first period. This affected their encounters with journalists. Some respondents appreciated talking with journalists for various reasons, such as therapeutic effects, a possibility to redress the deceased or trust in an individual journalist. But some respondents described how they were upset and outraged. Especially the first journalist encountered can raise suspicion and defense mechanisms within the vulnerable bereaved, unfamiliar with media interviews.

You have to be careful. That first journalist from that tabloid! I was irritated. They probably want you to say too much so they can write anything. (Carl)

From journalism’s point of view, this is paradoxical since it is a part of the journalistic self-image to beat competitors and get the first interview. Under an ethic of proximity, the vulnerable individual, in crisis linked to crime or accidents, must be seen as an exception from the usual journalistic work routines. And consideration must take precedence over professional demands (Bjerke, 2009).

Helen was upset after the first contact with journalists. She perceived them as aggressive and she refused to talk to them. The second journalist had better luck and got an interview. Otherwise, Helen felt that she did not care that much. After witnessing her fiancé being stabbed to death, she was on strong medication.

The anguish was constant, all days and all nights. So if I was interviewed or not did not really matter, since I still felt so bad. And the interview was so close to the event and I was not near to being a human for many months. (Helen)

Shock could also influence respondents in other ways.

In the beginning I was so shocked that I did not quite understand what was happening. It is a situation where you are outside your own body. I see myself and it is me talking. But is it really me? That was how shock was for me. (Jessica)

Such feelings of unreality and dissociation are described by A. Dyregrov and Dyregrov (2008) as common reactions in grief at the first critical phase. These defense mechanisms could, for some of these respondents, lead to indifference to journalists and their demands. This can be interpreted as a reason for the willingness to talk that is described by Simpson and Coté (2000) and Duncan and Newton (2014). At least Jessica, who obviously was in severe shock after finding her dying sister, had no problems with giving media interviews.

The shock made it easier. You see, you repress the feelings. So emotionally it was no problems for me. I did not even cry. (Jessica)

Protecting oneself from feelings of grief by behaving “normally” is also a typical shock reaction, described in literature about grieving processes (A. Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2008). Jessica is a concrete example of the difficulties and challenges in contacting and interviewing people in shock. The model of ethical co-operation, suggested by Duncan and Newton (2014), does not quite cover such a situation since the interviewee in shock does consent, and gives the impression of being in control. An ethic of proximity suggests that the vulnerable Other must be given precedence regardless if the needs are explicitly expressed or not uttered at all (Løgstrup, 1997). In Jessica’s case, the implicit needs were explicitly contradicted by the vulnerable Other. And in such a delicate situation, it may be irresistible for a journalist having the chance to interview the most newsworthy person in a dramatic and tragic event, to proceed and fulfill the professional assignment. The interviewee is indifferent and thus willing, and she does not see that her participation may have consequences for her grieving process.

Postponed grieving process

One effect of media contacts and interviews was what respondents described as feelings of not being left in peace with their grief.

If you don’t get that attention from journalists, I think you land much sooner and realize what really happened. Then you can start earlier to process the grief. So if the journalists only could have waited a month or so it would have been much easier for the family. (Jessica)

This is another example of discrepancy: The needs of the bereaved are out of step from the needs of journalists. Notable here is that respondents who did not give interviews during the first critical days – they were interviewed a couple of weeks later – perceived their mourning process less disturbed, even if it of course did not make grief itself easier.

But the opportunity to focus on journalists instead of painful grief could also be something preferable for some respondents. For David, whose son was abused to death, the vast media attention was a way to hold his feelings back and postpone the grief. When the attention declined, David had to face reality.

When they stop writing is when it hits you. When it’s not on TV and nothing in the papers. You begin to feel it is forgotten. He is forgotten, he is not there anymore. Because you think he will live on if people are talking about it. So you keep on waiting for these frequent phone calls. It is like abstinence. Like a heroin addict who did not get his shot. (David)

According to David, it was when the media attention ceased that he really acknowledged his son was dead.

You feel that nobody cares anymore. It is over. And grief appears when everything has silenced. (David)

David gave the impression that he felt abandoned by the media, and this is something that other respondents also perceived.

Abandoned

When the respondents talked about what happened when the media’s interest in them cooled off, they described feelings of loss and emptiness. Carl, who felt that the publicity in a way was a redress for his raped and murdered daughter, expressed emotions indicating he felt abandoned by the media, which were keen on interviews at the time of his daughter’s death.

Now there’s just silence. It feels a bit odd. Everything has calmed down. It’s like it is all forgotten, and it’s like bring on the next news piece. It makes me feel like she is forgotten. I do understand why the papers do not write anymore. I understand that. But for us, it is not forgotten. (Carl)

More implicit comments about feelings of being abandoned by journalists were expressed as a more general and societal problem: Stories that ought to be told will be withheld when journalists are no longer interested – when the bereaved feel ready to share more contextualized reflections and experiences.

It is this problem with follow-ups. They mainly write when something has happened. But the most interesting part is actually later in the process. Now, at first, we know how we process grief. It was not something we knew then. (Gwen)

It was a huge pressure in the beginning, they came immediately after. And it was TV, so they had cameras and all that stuff. It was a bit tough, because I was shocked and I did not want it to be true and all that. You know, I hadn’t got it. I don’t regret anything, but now I feel I could have said so much more. I was not prepared, then. But I still have a lot to tell. (Iris)

How traumatized and bereaved people often build trusting relationships with journalists they have met as a result of their tragedy is recognized in previous research (Duncan and Newton 2014; Blinded). Respondents who made more personal connections to some journalists can express feelings of not only abandonment but betrayal.

They became our friends. They were at our home. They moved furniture to get better pictures, we have talked. We served them food and coffee and such. And then they just disappear. They are gone. Hey, where did you go? (Laura)

Abandonment is not covered in journalism ethical codes or in more general moral positions applied on media practices. Brurås (2010) recognizes the problematic fact that the vulnerable news source, like a bereaved close relative, can misinterpret journalists’ motives when, as Brurås (2010) states, journalism is not about close relationships but completing assignments.

Conclusion

There is ambivalence in how respondents perceive journalists and their work methods: how contacts are made, how interviews are conducted and how journalists behave. Respondents can perceive their relations to one individual journalist as frustrating and negative, but the same respondent can feel his encounters with another journalist as something good and comforting. Overall, respondents talked more about journalists as persons rather than professionals, and they did not have any expectations on either ethical considerations or more personal sympathy from journalists. The personal approach from respondents toward journalists is no surprise, since the encounters took place during circumstances that were extraordinary, and at a time when the bereaved was vulnerable – in most cases, just a day or two after the unexpected and devastating loss of a loved one.

The results suggest journalism about grief is not only a delicate task, its execution is inconsistent. What one bereaved person perceives as devastating when it comes to how journalists behave can be something that another bereaved person perceives as good and helpful. Factors that influence this are how respondents react to shock, causes of death, whether there is a perpetrator and whether journalists are considered to behave well or badly.

But there are ethical challenges in death-knock journalism that even good journalists can’t fix or mitigate.

• Violations do not have to emerge from individual journalists’ insensitivity toward bereaved interviewees. Due to structural factors, the responsibility for the vulnerable Other may disseminate in the editorial organization. The “good” journalist can have been ever so ethical in his contacts with an interviewee, but in the end, the latter nevertheless can feel violated due to various editorial decisions.

• Yet another ethical dilemma is that interviewees can perceive the journalistic interviews as therapeutic. This need not be harmful in all cases, by may be in some. Journalists and interviewees can have very different purposes with the encounters. There is a risk that journalists take on a role they do not master and thus interfere with duties and skills of professional therapists.

• Similarly, interviews and media attention can have effects on and postpone the grieving process. And here the effects can emerge both from situations where the bereaved felt pressure and anxiety from the media attention and in cases where the bereaved were indifferent or even appreciated the journalist and the news coverage.

• The dimension of proximity can be applied to various stages of the interviewees’ relations to journalists. Journalists’ responsiveness and reaction to the often non-uttered need of closeness is an ethical challenge. But proper ethical behavior and general kindness and sympathy are no guarantee for a good outcome for bereaved after encounters with journalists. Interviewees can feel abandoned when journalists have finished their job and the media attention has ceased. One can argue that the risk for this is larger precisely when the journalist takes cautions, is aware of the vulnerability and acts as humanely. The paradox is: The more considerate the journalist, the more trust and dependence from the bereaved, the more likely are feelings of abandonment.

As shown in this article, interviewing the bereaved is problematic and poses an ethical dilemma from several aspects. First there are individual and personal factors in each individual case. It is also problematic due to the time factors, i.e., the collision between the grieving process and the news cycle. Taking ethical care in connection with contacts and interviews made close to the time of death is not always enough. Effects for the bereaved in the long run must also be included and considered.

The complexity in handling vulnerable bereaved demands very elaborate ethical strategies for journalists, both as individuals and as members of a news organization. Plain checklists risk that journalism misses the mark, due to the inconsistent and individually oriented character of grief journalism. Consent from the bereaved and giving control to them, as suggested by Duncan and Newton (2014), is not always enough. This is because vulnerable interviewees may agree without actually being fit to share or negotiate such decisions.

As this article shows, journalists take on a huge responsibility in their encounters with vulnerable bereaved. It would be easy to argue that interviews with the bereaved should not be done at all, but of course such a normative conclusion leads nowhere. These news stories will be done anyway, and not all encounters with journalism are hurtful for the bereaved. It is therefore important that the ethical aspects of journalists’ contacts and interviews with bereaved are not handled based on a “comfort position” in which the difficult aspects are avoided. A high degree of self-reflection is required, individually and collectively. The way forward is to acknowledge the problem, deepen our knowledge and understanding of the grief process and the ethical challenges in news coverage that include the bereaved in dramatic events. This must involve the news organizations, professional journalists and journalism education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.