There are other types of journalism. But when you're in news, that's expected of you. There are a lot of jobs with unpleasant tasks. I mean, it's like, don't become a doctor if you don't want to tell people bad news, but you're also not doing a service by being a doctor who just doesn't want to bum people out.
I don't think it's hypocritical to not want someone to hop a fence and ring the doorbell of someone who accidentally ran over someone. And NOT EVERYONE wants to see the sensationalism. Deb said she didn't, yet you still put her in the general population by stating EVERYONE and that she is wrong.
If the driver was drunk or high on drugs, sure, ring his doorbell. Bastard doesn't get a pass. If it was a horrible accident, hell no. I also don't have any interest in journalism, as can probably be assumed by my grammar. I'm not wrong for having my own opinion.
YUP, this.
There are news agencies/articles/ journalists whatever that dont stalk grieving family for a story. No way do I believe that is a part of RESPONSIBLE journalism.
There are other ways to get information, and enough people who would willingly talk about their loss so no, it is not "just the business"
It has nothing to do with this being a death site. I'm morbid, so yes, I find these stories intriguing, but if it means someone has to make an assholery move just to get a story, I can do with out it. I'm not that morbid.
You said it better than me.
So please never post anything from the Daily News again, if that's how you feel. And definitely don't go on their website or read anything.
It's the nature of the profession, sorry. Not saying right or wrong. But then don't act all like 'but it's in the news, we have the right to read about it!' when a family member comes on here irate that there's a death thread about them.
I like reading the info, seeing most pics but I could never call and ask questions to someone involved. I'd love to be a vet but I could never tell anyone their animal is dying....I have a hard time telling people at work that their hard drive failed and we can't get their data off.
Yes, the whole point is that it's not a job for everyone, but someone has to do it. There is a supply and demand.
Saying you "only want the facts" sounds nice and all, but then you're talking about how traumatized anyone involved was. I mean, what about the EMS people? If they were traumatized, then is it going too far to ask them questions? Where is the line drawn?
Yea, I understand Tara not wanting to do it, but to say you shouldn't talk to anyone after a tragedy seems incredibly naive.
Nail on head with the iconic photo point, Bowie. This definitely captured a lot. There is so much to them and not just the soulless photographer. Like that guy, Kevin Carter, who won the pulitzer prize for the photo of the starving African child crawling in the desert while a vulture awaited his death. He wound up killing himself. I could never do the job, but, honestly, I'm glad someone does.
See I think what we are saying is we feel there is a line that is crossed sometimes. This story has been reported multiple times - how many printed that photo of the mother hysterical clutching her surviving baby? I get that its a grey area...I think there is a difference between reporting facts and being intrusive.
Example Ron- EMS responders opt to discuss or not when there is a huge event ( within confines of what they are allowed professionally). Some 911 responders are on every show on earth telling their story- others will not relive that day. We have no right to coerce or trick someone into sharing personal things, is my point.
Yeah, I don't think they were asking Nancy Drew to show up on the person's property dressed like a shrub or the ghost of christmas past. Just directly asking questions.
I might have consented to that.
Journalism is about asking hard questions, about going places other people don't want to go. I personally wasn't comfortable calling that man at home and asking him how he felt after he ran over a kid. The news is obviously going to be more interesting with a comment from him because it's a detail. I wouldn't be able to take pictures of Marina. This is why I am not a journalist (well, for news that doesn't involve the analytical instrument industry). But whatever details can get reported- can and do. It's impossible for the news industry to draw the same line I drew, I s'pose.
I hear you. I guess a general "Are you willing to talk about this?" Isnt the same as hiding in the bushes taking pictures.
Maybe because it is just the antithesis of working in a field where you have to be so careful what you say and ask. :shrug
Yes, report the facts. I don't agree with reporters harassing grieving family members when their tots throats are slashed to ask them how they feel. IF, IF, IF the family is seeking out the media, so be it, but don't go harping after them. It's gross.
FTR, I've never obtained anything that isn't public record for any of the articles on here. AND, I've never been snarky or rude to ANY family or friends who have come on here all irate over an article that they've seen here. Which I actually saw in a thread today.
The point Nancy Drew, Ron and I are making is that like it or not, invasiveness is a major part of journalism. I had a friend who worked for the New York Times as the reporter on the scene at all the major murders. he said the first time he had to go approach a sobbing mother who'd just watched her son die, it sucked balls, but he did it and then it was part of his job. Reporting on these things is not the same as paparazzi. And news photographers capture the image at the time. They don't think about the emotion behind it because if they did, no one would photograph anyone. Why are you photographing that building burning down when you could be putting it out with water bottles? Etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)