The guest's privacy was also protected, and continuing with Wednesday's "Esimene stuudio" broadcast after the medical emergency unfolded breached no journalistic ethics, Tammerk goes on.

ETV's September 9 program "Esimene stuudio" featured a debate on defense between Estonia's Riigikogu parties, during which one of the politicians suffered a medical emergency. The health of Reform Party secretary general and Riigikogu member Kristo Enn Vaga deteriorated during the course of the live broadcast, and he was escorted out of the studio, where an ambulance took him to the ER for examinations. After these examinations, Vaga was allowed to return home during the night, and is recovering.

The medical emergency which occurred live on air and the continuation of the debate with one of the guests absent raise a number of questions concerning journalistic ethics and editorial practices.

As could be seen on the show and as the production team has also explained, the guest himself believed that he was able to continue taking part in the debate despite his health issue. He remained responsive throughout, and even raised his hand to ask for the floor. When his condition then deteriorated, he was quickly helped out of the studio. These sensitive moments were not broadcast to ETV viewers.

The guest was administered first aid in the area outside the studio until the ambulance arrived, after which he was taken to hospital for further examination. It is good to know that he was discharged from hospital that same night, and hopefully he will make a swift recovery.

Interrupting the show was one possible course of action. However, the production team opted to continue because, in their assessment, the situation had been resolved as far as the broadcast was concerned: The guest had been taken out of the studio and placed in the care of medical professionals. During a live broadcast, such decisions inevitably have to be made quickly, and the situation must be assessed on the basis of the information available at that point in time.

At the same time, I think the incident certainly affected the program's coherence and balance. A short break might have provided an opportunity to let tensions ease and helped the presenters, panelists and viewers recalibrate to what had happened. This could have allowed the program to continue more effectively in terms of its content. We will be reviewing with the editorial team once again whether taking a break would have been a better solution in a situation like that.

There is no reason to see the decision not to halt the show altogether in this situation as a breach of journalistic ethics. There have previously been instances during heated live debates when a guest has unexpectedly needed assistance and has been brought a chair, a glass of water or a towel. Such situations have likewise been handled out of the sight of viewers, after which the individual has been able to continue taking part meaningfully in the debate. In such cases, interrupting the show could attract the opposite criticism: Why draw special attention to a person's temporary condition if the situation can be resolved and the person themselves wishes to continue; after all, anyone can experience a moment of weakness from time to time.

The health of the "Esimene stuudio" guest was attended to, and his sensitive situation was handled out of viewers' sight. In this case, there are no grounds for considering the continuation of the program a breach of journalistic ethics. However, we will discuss with the editorial team once again how to be better prepared for such unexpected situations in the future.

Most likely everyone understands that presenters cannot share preliminary medical information live on air on the precise nature of any health issue. Behind the scenes, there was a swift and humane response, not all of which was visible to viewers, nor, given the nature of health information, should it have been. 

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!