After reading about the horrible tragedy of the dean's wife, I was first incredibly shocked and sad. And I thought more about it and i was more sad, and more shocked. I did not want to run out with a camera. I did not want to contact her husband, or her kids or her family or friends. I wanted them to have peace. of course I had thoughts. What were those drivers thinking? Were they students that I know? Other than that, this reaffirmed what I have been thinking for the past year, that I don't think I am meant to be a hard hitting news journalist! i still deeply appreciate journalism and it has been important for me in college, but I don't want to be a reporter. I don't have that passion, I don't have that drive to run out with a pen and paper to the scene to take quotes from those, probably horrible stunned, witnesses.
As for the title that the Ederly women was run down. I do feel that this title was misleading and inaccurate. Perhaps it was written in a rush. But I would hardly call 59 elderly. I'd be careful to call my 70 plus Nana elderly just because of the connotation surrounding it. Do you know shes not active? not full of life. 59 I think is not elderly. The older I get the more I realize what age is actually is. thirty...is not old, fourty hardly is...59? you are not considered a senior at some places at 59. anyway..
Also run down. That is not the truth. Because of an accident she was struck. An accident involving two cars and she was an innocent bystander. She was not purposely run down by a driver aiming to harm her. This title is misleading and sounds a bit sensational. Who knew that a blogger, just getting what he felt an important story out, would undergo such criticism. (maybe bloggers are journalists after all? if they aren't, would this little blog have made such a big splash?)
In a journalistic sense, I think that it is ethical to ask for interviews with the deceased family and friends. I think there is a polite way of going about it (after reading the packet Robertson gave us on how to interview people of a tragedy, how to offer your condolences, and how to appropriately phrase questions) But I think I would have trouble with this, (hence the reason I have decided not to become that kind of journalist) I tend to cry at even sentimental commercials, I dont know how I could go through an interview with a rape victim or someone who has suffered a loss or a tragedy without crying. Is that ethical? Is that not being a fair and unbiased reporter?
I feel that tragedy is something that is bound to happen. And is most likely going to make Page 1. So it is very important, no matter your time rush, to present a fair and accurate title and story. What else to people have if they don't have the truth? (and without it, what kind of credibility do you have?) This is all a lot to ponder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm going through the blogs according to their order on our page, so I'm almost written out on this topic! I suppose I could sum my attitude up thus: I take a green light approach to such questions. Unless I can think of a good reason not to publish a fact of general public interest, I would publish. Of course, there are many good reasons not to publish, so I don't mean publishing therefore becomes automatic. Generally speaking, I think the USF community would be thankful for the basic facts -- all of them -- presented in a non sensational way. As for talking to the victim's family, I think a sensitive obituary can be healing. I think it can be healing for those interviewed.
Post a Comment