News embargoes for deaths

Why are deaths so often embargoed in the UK? I could understand restraint if the next of kin have yet to be notified, but in other cases, isn't purposefully withholding known and verified information from the audience a bit ethically problematic?

Not when the passing is so large as to invoke large scale journalism of it. The News Organisations, generally, like it too. It enables them to 'tool up' accordingly. It also gives the bereaved family a known timescale to advise as many family members and important acquantances accordingly, preventing the harm of hearing via a public source. It's only the decent thing to do too.

It's not just next of kin, I certainly wouldn't want to hear that a close friend or colleague has passed away from a news report


Why would be unethical? Obviously the death needs to be publicly notified and registered at some point, but apart from that the public don't have an automatic right to know that someone has died

But doesn't the viewer have the right to learn about the latest news as soon as that news is verified? Doesn't withholding a news item damage the relationship between a news organization and its audience -- a relationship based on openness and frankness, even in the light of bad news?

And besides, why should the deaths of individuals be treated differently than any other news item? No one would suggest embargoing the news of a plane crash, even though that often results in hundreds if not thousands learning "that a close friend or colleague has passed away from a news report." So why is the death of a public figure any different?

I see your argument. In the case of plane crashes I'm pretty sure they don't release names until the next of kin have been notified?

You've answered your own question there.
The viewer was notified - after friends and family.
A plane crash is different because there are usually relatives have not been informed so it's usually flight destination and flight number (where known).

Right, but that isn't relevant if the crash has no survivors.

The death of a public figure through illness is a private event, which should be marked accordingly. A transport accident or trauma death is different, there is an unexpected cause to that, and it's likely to have taken place in public and witness testimony might be required urgently by the authorities. Prompt suitably sensitive reporting mentioning the facts but with discretionary identification of the victim or victims is to be expected. So once again, same outcome under different circumstances requires different treatment.

Not necessarily. The case of Christine Chubbuck, an American journalist who infamously shot herself live on air in the 1970s comes to mind. That was as about as latest and verified as it could possibly get.



Most embargoes are simply Gentlemen's Agreements and nothing else, there's no legal requirement to honour them but it works better in the long term if they are honoured. There is an exception of non-disclosure agreement for some possibly Government stuff/military/Secrets Act, I can't remember what it was called but it was in at least four categories and came up on Only Connect as a sequence a few weeks ago.

But what about the embargo when the Queen Mother died? Surely her family knew that she had died long before the embargo was lifted. And Night Thoughts wrote that the news of John Peel's death was embargoed until 2 p.m. even though the BBC newsroom knew about it at about noon. I imagine his family was aware of the news quite a bit before then.

I'm just bothered by the idea of news organizations embargoing well-sourced, verified information. The implicit attitude -- " We know something, but why should they have the right to know before we want to share it?" -- strikes me as a bit paternalistic.

But again, in most cases, the family is aware of the death before the media are. Why have any further embargoes?

Even newsrooms didn't know until just before they went on air, as the Newsflash documentary recalls.