Between harm and sensationalism: Court reporters negotiating objectivity when reflecting on ethical dilemmas in the Submarine Murder Trial

When Danish inventor and amateur submarine builder Peter Madsen was tried for the murder of the Swedish journalist Kim Wall, the trial was dubbed by the media as “the most publicised murder trial in Danish history [translated]” (Gottschalck, 2018). In addition to Danish and Scandinavian journalists, reporters from AFP, Sky News, CNN, and BBC were present, and more than 100 journalists covered the trial’s first day. The trial was a perfect news story (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017): a celebrity suspect, a female journalist as the victim, gruesome details (e.g., beheading, dismembering, and impaling), a possible sexual motive, and a crime scene one might find in a fiction novel – a submarine. Even before the trial, the intensive media coverage of the police investigation into the death of Kim Wall had sparked ethical discussions into the intensity of the media coverage, the portrayal of the parties involved, and the risk of fiction-like journalism (Wittchen, 2019). Thus, when the trial started, court reporters expected criticism from both inside and outside the news media institution.

In recent years, several murder trials have attracted enormous media attention, both nationally and globally. This article contributes to the research on the coverage of murder trials, such as those of football player O. J. Simpson (Grabe, 2000), world-famous Paralympic runner Oscar Pistorius (Knight, 2017), and Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik (Mogensen, 2013). Murder trial reporting is a part of media coverage devoted to court hearings and criminal trials on the court beat (Magin & Maurer, 2019). It has been argued that court journalism is essential in democratic societies because citizens gain access to ongoing trials and learn about prevailing laws and sanctions (Johnston, 2018; Jones, 2021; Rodrick, 2014). Furthermore, the audience can draw on coverage when assessing whether the accused received a fair trial, which echoes the ideal of the media as the “fourth estate” (Jones, 2021).

However, court reporting is known for its inherent ethical issues (Brurås, 2009), and researchers have discussed the ethical dilemmas and pitfalls of courtroom journalism, which are the focus of this article. Trial coverage has been criticised for being sensational and entertaining instead of informative (Vinson & Ertter, 2002), for drawing heavily on fiction and storytelling in its reporting (Lehrmann, 2011), and for the one-sided portrayal of defendants (Bock & Araiza, 2015). Decades ago, Ericson and colleagues (1989) demonstrated that incorrect facts and problematic choices in details published by court reporters covering sexual crimes were prevalent themes, along with “moral dilemmas” related to the risk of harming those involved (Ericson et al., 1989: 50).

Today, the demand for correct facts and concern for the involved are core topics in the Danish Press Ethical Rules related to court reporting, which I investigate in this article (Pressenævnet, 2013). Thus, I examine Danish court reporters’ reflections on their trial reporting during the highly controversial Submarine Murder Trial, contributing to the limited research into press ethics on the trial beat. I focus specifically on court reporters’ reflections on objectivity. While objectivity is a general guiding norm of Western journalism and Danish court reporting, it is also written into the Danish Press Ethical Rules, which state: “Court reporting should be objective” (Pressenævnet, 2013: C3). In examining reporters’ thoughts about what was appropriate to report, I find it useful to return to Westerståhl’s (1977, 1983) discussions on and operationalisation of objectivity, especially his division of the idea into the aspects of factuality and relevance. I ask the following research question:

Court reporting has been explored through various approaches, such as the analysis of sources in court news (Ericson et al., 1989), social media (Knight, 2017), news narratives (Johnston & Breit, 2010), and news selection (Jones, 2021; Machill et al., 2007). A minor part of this research field has focused specifically on press-related ethical issues in court reporting. In the following section, I introduce the main approaches used and the findings produced by this relatively limited research field and describe the focus of this article.

Previous research has shown how trial reporting can be considered both correct and relevant but also be perceived as harmful. Brurås (2009) explored this perspective in his assessment of press council verdicts on crime journalism, and some of his findings were related to the coverage of two Norwegian murder trials. He showed how the media published facts of interest to the public, but relatives found the coverage to be one-sided and incorrect (Brurås, 2009). Other studies have shown that biased reporting and neutrality are core themes of investigations into press ethics on the trial beat. A recent study of rulings made by the Danish Press Council showed how some forms of crime reporting – including trial reporting – violate sound press ethics because of biased reporting and undocumented facts (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2021b). The risk of biased reporting was also discussed in Waterhouse-Watson’s (2019) study on sexual crime trials, when she unveiled the “complex questions of ethics” when news media presented the defendant as innocent or guilty through specific narratives, which challenges the journalistic ideal of neutrality.

Other scholars chose to investigate professional practitioners, an approach I also adopt in this article. Musalayah and colleagues (2012) explored court reporters’ understanding of ethical guidelines related to their daily work as trial reporters, and they underlined the importance of writing facts and avoiding prejudging. Others uncovered editorial discussions into press-related ethical issues regarding Anders Breivik’s detailed description of the shooting rampage he testified to during his trial in 2012 (Frey, 2013). However, neither of these studies looked further into reporters’ reflections on how to conduct ethical trial reporting, nor did they elucidate how these ethical strategies related to facts, neutrality, bias, and potential harm were formulated through negotiations within the news institution. These perspectives are investigated in this paper.

In previous research, scholars have called for more research on court reporters’ practices, to which this study contributes. Hochberger (2006: 456) stressed the importance of further studies on the “perplexing issues” that court reporters face, and Jones (2021: 15) argued that “partial silence” on court reporting has served to conceal the way in which this important area of journalism continues to be practised. The purpose of this article is to break this silence and provide new insights into trial reporters’ reflections on their ethical practices and to explore how these are formed by ideals, norms, and rules related to objectivity. To do so, I first introduce the theoretical framework and the Submarine Murder Trial as a case study and describe the methodological approach, which consisted of qualitative interviews. Finally, I present the analysis and conclusion.

Between the institutional ideal of objectivity and the operationalised rules for sound press ethics, there is room for negotiation regarding how trial reporters engage in proper ethical reporting. In this section, I clarify how scholars define objectivity as a professional tool and strategy. Furthermore, this section helps guide the analysis of trial reporters’ reflections on how they negotiate objectivity and develop strategies when covering a high-profile murder trial.

Objectivity is referred to as a defining norm of modern journalism (Donsbach & Patterson, 1996; Patterson, 1998; Skovsgaard et al., 2012), and the ideal of objectivity holds that facts can be separated from values or opinion and that journalists can and should report on events in a neutral manner (Hackett, 1984; Reese, 1990). In Western news media, objectivity has been a cornerstone since the rise of the broadsheet press (Donsbach & Klett, 1993; Maras, 2013; Mindich, 1998; Schudson, 1978, 2001; Ward, 2015), and the norm emerged as the press became a professional and established societal institution (Blach-Ørsten, 2019; Ward, 2015).

With regard to Danish journalists, the subjects of this study, previous studies have shown that they strongly endorse the ideal of objectivity (Hartley & Askanius, 2020; Skovsgaard, 2010). In one study, 45 per cent of Danish journalists stated that it is “very important” to be as objective as possible (Skovsgaard et al., 2012). Yet, it is widely recognised that objectivity must be interpreted and operationalised by journalists in their daily work because an exact representation of “reality” is impossible (Donsbach & Klett, 1993; Mindich, 1998; Skovsgaard et al., 2012).

Instead of focusing on being objective, journalists have “fallen back on more defensible standards, like ‘accuracy,’ ‘balance,’ and ‘fairness’” (Reese, 1990: 393). In recent years, we have seen how the objectivity norm has been discussed, with Schudson and colleagues pointing at the “rise of objectivity 2.0”, which is defined as contextual, analytical, or interpretive journalism (Schudson, 2018: 66; Schudson & Anderson, 2020). This type of journalism is “less insulated from values that it had once been but which is nonetheless regularly defended by journalists as providing the necessary background for understanding events of the day” (Schudson & Anderson, 2020: 142–143). Ward (2015: 283) further argued for “pragmatic objectivity”, making room for interpreting facts and evaluating and adopting a perspective. He argued that the ideal of objectivity and press ethical codes are closely connected, which is the case in the Danish Press Ethical Rules related to court reporting. The rules state the following:

Furthermore, the rules underline how journalists should refrain from prejudging until the criminal case has been decided or the charge has been withdrawn (Jørgensen & Nielsen, 2018; Pressenævnet, 2013). The advisory rules are a part of the 1992 Media Liability Act (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2017) and were last updated in 2013 by the Danish Media Association (Danske Medier) and the Danish Union of Journalists. All reporters interviewed for this paper were subject to these rules.

Scholars have demonstrated how reporters choose various strategies to meet the demands of objectivity, underlining that objectivity is not only an ambiguous and moral ideal and rule but also a pragmatic tool for avoiding criticism (Schudson, 2001; Skovsgaard et al., 2012; Tuchman, 1972). Gaye Tuchman (1972) showed how reporters, through their practices, can claim objectivity by reporting facts in a detached, unbiased manner and by presenting both sides of the story. Tuchman (1972: 662) argued that objectivity may be considered a “strategic ritual” that protects journalists from criticism from sources, audiences, and superiors. More recent studies have discussed the risk of journalists becoming too cynical if they practice detached and distanced reporting that restrains and offers little room for showing concern and empathy in their coverage (Brurås, 2009; Brurås & Røssland, 2005).

In analysing how journalists reflect on their (ethical) reporting strategies, it is useful to turn to a Nordic approach to further operationalise objectivity (Westerståhl, 1977, 1983). Drawing on the rules and regulations that govern the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation, Westerståhl (1983: 404) argued that objectivity, as a concept, consists of “factuality” and “impartiality”, which to some extent echoes Tuchman’s perspectives of facts and unbiased reporting. He further argued that factuality can be divided into “truth” and “relevance”, and impartiality can be divided into “balance/non-partisanship” and “neutral presentation” (Westerståhl, 1983: 404–405). To some extent, relevance is present in the Danish Press Ethical Rules that state how violations of “the sanctity of private life” can be acceptable when the reported information is in “obvious public interest” (Pressenævnet, 2013: B1, B2). However, “obvious public interest” is not further explained; thus, there is room for interpretation. For this study, the aspect of relevance in relation to facts is especially pertinent, since some interviewees turned to relevance when reflecting on their strategies of choosing how to cover a murder trial and what to cover.

Months of police investigation coverage reminiscent of crime fiction had aroused intense global interest prior to the courtroom drama that began on 8 March 2018 in Denmark. In the UK and the US, live broadcasting from the courtroom is permitted to some extent (Bernzen, 2018; Bock & Araiza, 2015; Gerbner, 1995; Knight, 2017). In Denmark, Section 32 of the Administration of Justice Act stipulates that sound and television recordings are forbidden (except when expressly allowed by the judge) (Jørgensen & Nielsen, 2018: 272). The courts only allow this in high-profile cases, and only the professionally involved are televised, such as the reading of the verdict; this was the case in the Submarine Murder Trial. Because of the extraordinary media interest, the City Court of Copenhagen used the cafeteria as an extra press room for reporters with press cards, where they watched the trial live on television.

To understand this media interest, it is useful to note that murder is rare in Denmark and therefore often makes headlines (Lund, 2003). From 2006 to 2016, 30–50 murders were documented each year, and the murderers and their (mostly) female victims were usually relatives (Thomsen et al., 2019). Therefore, when Swedish journalist Kim Wall lost her life under mysterious circumstances on a submarine built by a well-known public figure who was later charged with and convicted of brutal sexual abuse, murder, and dismemberment, it was the perfect “what-a-story” (Berkowitz, 1992). The Submarine Murder Trial attracted media attention in an unprecedented manner in Denmark, allowing it to be characterised as an extreme case (Yin, 2009).

In the preliminary reading of the interviews – and in the later analysis – it became clear how various elements of objectivity were recurring themes. By drawing and building on the work of Westerståhl (1977) and Tuchman (1972), the analysis clarifies how reporters operationalise and negotiate objectivity in various ways and further reveals new types of strategic rituals. The following three sections are intertwined, and overlapping analytical points will occur: 1) negotiating facts and relevance, 2) negotiating covering both sides, and 3) negotiating no prejudging.

Journalists face ethical challenges and dilemmas when covering a high-profile and sensational trial because the news reporting might result in harm or prejudice to those involved. This study contributes to new insights into how professional practitioners draw upon the same ideals and ethical rules with regards to objectivity, yet interpret and negotiate them in varying ways. There are some limitations to generalising a qualitative study of a single Danish case with ten interviewees. However, the study advances new perspectives on the disparities in trial reporters’ strategic practices, court reporting in the contemporary digital era marked by live reporting and public attention, the use of new genres in trial reporting, and the diverse interpretations of how to conduct unbiased journalism.

Drawing on Westerståhl’s (1977, 1983) focus on relevance as a way to obtain objectivity, this study has highlighted how some reporters distanced themselves from simply “reporting facts” and instead focused on “reporting relevant facts”. Supplementing the large body of literature into the ideal and norm of objectivity, I argue that this norm is negotiated in the reporters’ everyday practices. This is significant because relevant facts can be viewed as facts that are important to the public interest, and as such, it may be considered acceptable to publish them, even if they potentially violate sound press ethics.

In light of the ideal of reporting in a neutral manner (Hackett, 1984; Reese, 1990) and the importance of writing facts (Musalayah et al., 2012), this study also offers new insights into a minor group of trial reporters opposing neutral and fact-based reporting. These reporters deliberately chose an interpretive approach, which echoes recent studies arguing for a more inclusive and pragmatic understanding of objectivity (Ward, 2015) and the rise of “objectivity 2.0”, endorsing analytical and interpretive journalism (Schudson & Anderson, 2020). During the interviews, some news reporters specifically criticised the interpretive approach. The obvious resistance to what they perceived as a deviant reporting style (Carlson, 2014) indicates how reporters feared potential criticism of bias and prejudging falling on the news institution and confirms the persistent critique of crime and trial journalism as unethical, sensational, entertaining, and unnecessarily harmful to those involved (Waterhouse-Watson, 2019).

To summarise, this article has shown how balanced reporting is a common aim among most reporters, and some reporters even explained that they struggled not to give Madsen too much attention. They feared they would contribute to unbalanced reporting and true crime entertainment (Lehrmann, 2011). Another concern was the failure to give due consideration to the victim, leading reporters to take a side to some extent. This supports the idea that taking a stance is acceptable as long as it empathises with the victim, even though it may conflict with the journalistic ideal of impartiality. Thus, the study has argued that impartiality is also negotiated.

A core finding is how reporters add a novel ritual to their existing set of strategies to avoid criticism. Inspired by Tuchman (1972), Schudson (2018), and Schudson & Anderson (2020), this finding contributes to what I term “strategic ritual 2.0”, which takes into account the integration of interpretive elements in contemporary trial reporting and the ability to engage with audiences through online reporting. Strategic ritual 2.0 was identified when reporters turned to their readers to explain their editorial and ethical choices. This aspect can be seen as a form of meta-journalism aiming at establishing control over appropriate journalistic practices and behaviours (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2021a; Carlson, 2014). Using this strategy, the reporters can shield themselves from criticism. This ritual might especially come into play when reporting on trials, given criticisms related to sensationalism, entertainment, and the risk of doing unnecessary harm (Lehrmann, 2011; Vinson & Ertter, 2002). But it can also be the case when reporting live because of the massive flow of information and readers’ ability to ask questions regarding topics such as the question of guilt. Further studies should further examine how reporters ritualise and strategise ethical reporting.

Such rituals, I argue, are central to understanding how trial reporters support and practise the ideal of “no prejudging” (Hackett, 1984; Musalayah et al., 2012), particularly as questions from the audience lead to live reporters explaining the court’s role to decide the question of guilt. In light of this, future studies should further explore the notion of strategic ritual 2.0, not only in relation to murder trial reporting but in other areas of journalism as well.