Situation Definition
On September 27, 1990, Mehrdad Dashti, a 31 year-old paranoid schizophrenic residing in Berkley, CA, entered Henry’s Publick House and Grille in the Durant Hotel and took 33 university students hostage, killing one person in the process (Gross 1990). Local news teams rushed to the scene to cover the event, including a KPIX 5, a Bay-Area CBS affiliate (Deitch 1999). Inside the bar, Dashti demanded that in exchange for the safe return of the hostages, the federal government grant him 16 trillion dollars and ownership over a number of US states. In addition, local Police Chief Frank Jordan would also have to appear on live television and expose himself. KPIX relayed this information to their viewers, adding that the demands were “deranged”, a comment that Dashti, who was following the coverage himself inside the bar, was able to hear (Deitch 1999). In the end, police stormed the bar and shot Dashti in the head and chest, killing him and freeing the hostages (Gross 1990). KPIX later came under fire, however, for the way they covered the story. Critics argued that by making inflammatory comments about Dashti’s demands, KPIX made the situation more tense, possibly ruining the chance of a peaceful outcome (Deitch 1999). In this situation, KPIX was faced with the ethical dilemma of balancing the public’s right to know with their duty to minimize harm. On one hand, KPIX had a duty to inform the public about the events transpiring in the bar. On the other, they also had a duty to report in a responsible manner and attempt to avoid any adverse consequences for those involved in the story.
Analysis
One of the main concerns with media coverage of hostage situations is the potential for an increase in the frequency of such incidents as a result. According to Deitch in 1999 “knowing the level of media attention they will get by taking hostages, people who want to be heard and believe they can accomplish this in no other way are encouraged to take this route” (Deitch 1999). In a similar case, John Lance, a Montana man who was in the midst of a messy divorce, wrote several letters to media outlets threatening to take hostages in order to give himself a platform to voice his grievances. He explained that he wanted nationwide attention of his situation, and that by taking hostages and attracting the press, he could finally have the attentive audience that he so desired (Deitch 1999). Another concern with media coverage of hostage situations is that the media’s presence may actually make the situation worse. Media outlets can unknowingly divulge crucial information to the hostage taker, who like in the case of Dashti, are often following along with the coverage. Even if their comments do not give away sensitive information about the negotiations, media presence can still work to intensify a hostage situation in other ways. John Ager, one of the Berkeley hostages, remarked that Dashti became “frustrated and angered” after seeing KPIX’s coverage of his situation (Deitch 1999).
In addition to a duty to minimize harm, media outlets also have a responsibility to inform the public about the events transpiring in their area. Media coverage can allow the public to determine if the behavior of police officers involved in the incident was appropriate or not, and provide them a forum to voice their complaints should the conduct of law enforcement fall short of expectations (Deitch 1999). The first amendment ensures that the press will always have a right to report and disseminate information, and in a situation like a hostage negotiation where the public is unable to gather information about the events transpiring themselves, the media plays a very important role in keeping the public informed (Deitch 1999). In the case of KPIX and the Berkeley hostages, bay area residents had a right to know that a deranged man was holding citizens captive in their neighborhood. The ethical dilemma that comes into play, however, is the question of how much information can safely be reported without endangering those trapped in the bar. It is also worth consideration that in some cases, there is research to suggest that media coverage of hostage situations may actually decrease their prevalence, contrary to the point made earlier (Deitch 1999). A select group of researchers maintain that if disenfranchised individuals see others having their demands heard in the media, they will feel less voiceless, and will be less likely to act rashly in order to prove a point to society. Many acts of violence or terrorism stem from a feeling of powerlessness created by the government’s perceived unwillingness to listen, so when individuals holding those beliefs see others taking hostages and making demands on the news, they feel as if their voice has finally been heard, deterring them from committing an act of violence themselves (Deitch 1999).
Conclusion:
KPIX’s coverage of the Berkeley hostage situation is a perfect example of an ethical dilemma consistently faced by media outlets around the country. The press plays a pivotal role in delivering information to the public, and it is imperative that in doing so they find an appropriate balance between the public’s right to know and minimizing harm for those involved in the story. Situations like the one that occurred in Berkley will unfortunately continue to occur, so as journalists, we must strive to find a socially responsible way to deliver information to the masses.
Works Cited
Gross, J. (1990, September 27). Berkeley Gunman Kills Student Taken Hostage.
Retrieved November 15, 2017, from
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/28/us/berkeley-gunman-kills-student-
taken-hostage.html
Linda N. Deitch, Breaking News: Proposing a Pooling Requirement for Media
Coverage of Live Hostage Situations, 47 UCLA L. Rev. 243, 306 (1999)
Shanks, T., S.J. (1997, April 1). The Case of Henry’s Publick House. Retrieved
November 15, 2017, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-
areas/journalism-ethics/resources/the-case-of-henrys-publick-house/