Each block contrasts how ethical reporting and sensationalist coverage treat the same issue. Hover over the pills for a short explanation. Hover or click a block to see a real case on the right.
🧍♀️ Harm to victims
Dignity and revictimisation
✅
Ethical coverage
Asks for consent, avoids humiliating close-ups and gives victims space to decide what they want to share and what they prefer to keep private.
⚠️
Sensational coverage
Repeats images of crying and bodies without context, turns tragedy into spectacle and risks revictimising those who are already suffering.
📉 Risk of errors
Verification and context
✅
Ethical coverage
Cross-checks sources, verifies images with OSINT tools and clearly distinguishes what is confirmed from what is still uncertain or under investigation.
⚠️
Sensational coverage
Spreads unconfirmed claims, mixes images out of context and lets viral narratives dictate the agenda instead of careful verification.
🤝 Public trust
Long-term reputation
✅
Ethical coverage
Explains how information has been obtained, acknowledges mistakes when they occur and offers useful guidance for affected communities.
⚠️
Sensational coverage
Promises empty “exclusives”, contradicts itself between stories and ends up being perceived as exaggerated or unreliable by the public.
📲 Toxic virality
Social media and misinformation
✅
Ethical coverage
Verifies videos before amplifying them, labels archive material clearly and corrects fast when misinformation is detected.
⚠️
Sensational coverage
Shares any shocking clip without confirming where it comes from, amplifies conspiracy frames and spreads false content even further.
🧩 Narrative complexity
Causes and solutions
✅
Ethical coverage
Connects the disaster with public policy, inequality, climate change and risk management, and includes both expert and local voices.
⚠️
Sensational coverage
Looks for a single bad actor, ignores structural patterns and offers narratives that entertain but do not help people understand or prevent future crises.