Tabloids and gossip outlets have often crossed boundaries, publishing graphic details or suggestive material immediately after someone's death – for which they faced a wave of criticism. For example, the daily "Fakt" was widely condemned for an article about the suicide of Leszek Miller's son (with the catchy headline "The Father Chose Politics, the Son Chose Rope"), published on the day of the funeral. Internet users pointed out that the article lacked basic respect for the deceased and his family , which everyone deserves regardless of the circumstances of the death. The article was described as "disgusting" and contrary to the principles of journalistic ethics, according to which even sensation-hungry media outlets must maintain certain boundaries when reporting human tragedies. A similar wave of condemnation fell on "Super Express" after its cover published a macabre photo showing the body of the tragically deceased war correspondent, Waldemar Milewicz.
Seemingly innocent EVP recordings and "messages from the afterlife" are also often accompanied by sensational narratives : creators try to outdo each other with dramatic titles such as "Shocking last words..." , "Unbelievable confession of a ghost..." , etc. This kind of framing undoubtedly increases click-through rates, but at the same time smacks of tabloid lust for cheap sensationalism .In the context of media standards, publishing unverifiable messages purportedly from the dead can be considered a form of disinformation (after all, the veracity of such statements cannot be confirmed) or at least a lack of reliability. The journalistic principle of truth and verifiability of information does not apply here – the authors themselves often admit that they do it "for entertainment" or create "content that people simply want to watch."
Even if they don't formally provide false facts, but merely "report" paranormal experiences, they still place specific words in the mouths of the deceased that were never uttered and that no one but the deceased can hear. Such a practice contradicts the requirement of reliability—it creates a narrative based on unverifiable (and potentially fictitious or pareidolia-induced) premises and presents it as sensational "truth from the afterlife."
Furthermore, there is a principle of sensitivity and restraint when publishing material concerning death or human suffering. Many newsrooms' ethical codes include recommendations to avoid hurting the feelings of loved ones of the deceased , not to publish material that could intensify their pain, and not to exploit a tragedy for cheap sensationalism.
It seems reasonable to conclude that publicizing the alleged voices of someone who has just died in dramatic circumstances certainly violates this principle. It's difficult to believe that sensational "dialogues with a ghost" serve the public interest or provide reliable information – they seem more like a tabloid show , which must be exceptionally painful for the deceased's family.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz