Humanity First: Journalism, grief, and the line we must not cross – Halima Umar Saleh

By Halima Umar Saleh

Debates have recently emerged in Northern Nigeria on whether it is appropriate for journalists to interview core victims of a crime.

This debate follows the devastating and gruesome murder of a housewife and her six children in the Kano metropolis. They were brutally murdered in cold blood, in broad daylight, inside their home, while the father was in his shop trying to make ends meet.

What left people perplexed and deeply troubled was not only the shock of the murder itself, but also the actions of media organisations that competed to interview the grieving husband and father. Audiences began to ask whether it is ethically right for journalists to interview a man who has just lost his entire family.

Many audience members—whom media houses seek to attract for views and clicks—felt that there was a complete lack of empathy and compassion in interviewing a man who is arguably the biggest victim of this tragedy. They believe the act was highly insensitive.

Well, let us dive into the context to gain insight from different perspectives.

From my experience in this profession, I have attended dozens of trainings on interviewing and reporting, all of which emphasize ethics that must be respected. We all know that the media and journalists play an important role in providing the public with information on crime levels, trends in violence, and other social issues. However, many journalists today do not fully understand the risks of secondary harm to victims.

In the guidebook Journalists and Victims of Crimes, which she co-wrote, Petra Vitoušová, President of Bílý kruh bezpečí, a victim-support organization in the Czech Republic, states that:

Read Also: GOCOP CONFAB25: Bode George urges online publishers to tackle fake news, uphold journalism ethics

“Providing sensitive and well-balanced information on particular cases is a very useful function of the media. On the other hand, untactful or insensitive approaches and invasion of privacy have an adverse impact on a range of individuals, including victims of crime.”

She further explains how crime is a fascinating topic that attracts readers and viewers, rouses emotions, increases sales and ratings, and how media narratives in crime stories can be subtly altered. However, she raises critical questions: how much do we really know about the reactions people have to this kind of information? How much do we know about the damage inflicted on victims of crime as a result of insensitive media approaches?

The Kano case is a clear example of how media organisations increased page clicks, video views, and followership because of this story. That was the objective, and it was achieved. Knowing newsroom culture, I am certain that the success in traffic and engagement was celebrated across media houses, especially during editorial meetings, while the main victim, Fatima’s husband, was left in agony, shock, and apprehension, possibly for the rest of his life.

As for the audiences, even though they complain bitterly about this unethical attitude, many still consumed the content and engaged with it.

All major journalism ethics codes agree on this issue:

• Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ): “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort.”
• Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma: Emphasizes trauma-informed reporting, especially immediately after loss.
• UNESCO / IFJ: Journalists must avoid revictimization and the exploitation of grief.

These guidelines clearly show that interviewing a man who has just lost his wife and six children to murder carries an extreme risk of harm.

During BBC’s EBJ trainings for fresh journalists, trainers consistently emphasize respecting professional ethics through real-life examples. In one session, a trainer narrated how a BBC reporter was on the ground covering the horrific Manchester Concert Bombing in 2017. The reporter managed to convince one of the first rescuers at the scene to grant an interview. However, upon noticing how shocked and destabilized the rescuer was, the reporter escalated the issue and contacted his editors.

Although the editors understood that the interview could generate massive traffic, they prioritized ethics and instructed the reporter to withdraw and wait until the contributor had emotionally stabilized. The rescuer was contacted months later, and the interview still generated the desired engagement.

The lesson, according to the trainers, was simple: humanity first. Whatever you do as a journalist, always remember that losing our humanity ultimately means losing ourselves.

Read Also: Citizen Journalism And Lost Of Humanity

As journalists covering crime, it is possible to create multiple stories without jeopardizing the already fragile mental state of victims. Martin Kloubek, a crime investigator, advises:

“Do not force the victim to provide you with information. The victim’s experience of a crime is a painful and predominantly private matter, and the victim will usually not wish to have this published.”

When it is ethically wrong

It is unethical when:

• The person is in shock, disoriented, or unable to give informed consent
• The interview is conducted immediately after notification or at the scene
• The journalist pushes for emotional breakdowns, asks questions meant to provoke tears or anger, or uses footage primarily for emotional impact
• The victim has no real ability to refuse

In such cases, the interview becomes exploitation of trauma, not journalism.

Why ethics and regulations matter

In every sector, ethics and regulations exist and are meant to be respected, no matter the situation. Unfortunately, in recent years, the normalization of breaking laws and eroding family values has been on the rise. The consequences are evident. We have normalized betrayal and the theft of public funds in politics, and today the political environment benefits no one—it harms both leaders and citizens.

We are now witnessing an AI revolution, where the conversation constantly centers on ethics and regulation. Now the question is: why would human beings who struggle to uphold ethics and regulations in their own professions worry about regulating the AI industry? I leave you to answer that.

Lastly, I call on my fellow journalists to do better. Stop being a source of additional pain for victims of crime. That is unacceptable. That is awkward. Help improve their mental state instead of adding to their suffering.

Losing one’s entire family in a gruesome murder is one of the most unbearable forms of agony imaginable.

Leave interviews for a later time—never during the most poignant moments. Allow the man to process his thoughts, allow him to cool off in peace. Do not overstimulate him.

Saleh, a Senior Editor, Communications Specialist|and Digital Content Strategist, writes from Turkey.