Ethical Issues in Gregg Zoroya Case Study
Situational Definition:
The case study of Gregg Zoroya is interesting, complicated, and completely unethical. In 2002, USA Today reporter, Gregg Zoroya, flew to Israel to cover the Palestinian uprising that in 18 months had killed 185 Israelis in suicide bombings (Heyboer, 2002, p. 1). After spending time in Jerusalem, Zoroya was given the opportunity to interview a potential suicide bomber, who asked to be Suha. “Suha” was a 30-year-old woman who was staying in a safe house guarded by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (Heyboer, 2002, p. 1). Suha then told Zoroya that she was ready to blow herself up but was unsure of when and where her mission would be (Heyboer, 2002, p. 1).
USA Today newsroom, stationed in Virginia, would then agree to run a story about female suicide bombers. The paper had no concerns about the ethical questions surrounding it; they just wanted to authenticate it. Once the story was published, it leads journalists around the country to pose some serious questions: did moral duty trump journalistic integrity and do journalists’ make a “deal with the devil” for the sake of a story?
Analysis:
This case study unveils two major ethical concerns. First being, that of moral duty versus journalistic integrity. The Society of Professional Journalists states that a reporter’s duty is to seek truth and report it while also minimizing harm. While Zoroya did seek the truth about female suicide bombers, he didn’t think about the potential harm the story may have caused. Higgins and Smith argue that “coverage of conflict should balance the perspectives of each side and remain emotionally disengaged from collateral damage.” (p. 354). In circumstances of trauma and conflict, journalists should instead, practice “contextual objectivity” (subvert “norms of objectivity” to convey localized sensitivities and expectations, whatever the political and patriotic cost) (Higgins & Smith, 2011, p. 354). In simpler terms, a journalist should remain objective but also take into consideration the sensitivity of the subject of their reporting. While Zoroya never published (and never knew) her real name or when and where the bombing was going to happen, he had a moral duty report the information given to him. Suicide bombings continued to happen, never knowing if it was “Suha” or not; he has to live with that for the rest of his life.
The Society of Professional Journalist Ethics Code states that harm must be minimized. Personally, I believe that Zoroya and the USA Today team completely disregarded the people’s safety. Zoroya had information that a bombing was going to happen and he didn’t report it to the authorities. Zoroya withheld information that could have potentially saved lives. While Zoroya didn’t know the time or place of the bombing, he knew where she was being safeguarded. If he alerted the authorities, he could have gotten one less suicide bomber off the “street.”
Conclusion:
I strongly believe that Zoroya was unethical in nature. I understand that Zoroya didn’t know all the details surrounding the potential bombing but I believe that it was his moral duty to alert the authorities. Zoroya was aware of where Suha was hiding and who she was working for; if he had given that information to the authorities he might have saved some lives. I know that as a journalist we have to strive to not be caught in the middle, but as an American citizen and as a human, I believe that your moral duty should come first especially in regards to terrorism.
References:
Higgins, M., Smith. A. (2011). NOT ONE OF U.S. Journalism Studies, 12(3), 344-358. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2010.504568
Heyboer, K. (2002). Face to Face with a Suicide Bomber. American Journalism Review.