In the news

If you could give me an email address for the terrorist ombudsman I'd write a strongly worded behaviour denouncing their behaviour...

The nature of our press means some journalists go way beyond the expected norms of their profession. They deserve our condemnation.

Oops sorry, fixed! Not that ironic though?

some journalists

.

bashing the terrorists instead of the journalists?

OK, stop with the "either/or" bullshit.

Seriously, we're complex and intelligent creatures (for the most part) and are capable of doing more than one thing at once. This is not a scenario where you should be choosing the worst of evils and leaving all else unchecked. In the wake of a horrific event like this, journalists should not be given absolute license to act like utter self-serving asshats, particularly towards traumatised people.

We can bash both terrorist and shit-heaping journalists at the same time. More importantly, we absolutely should.

We can bash both terrorist and shit-heaping journalists at the same time. More importantly, we absolutely should.

Absolutely but the main thing people were talking about was a Twitter diatribe from an account which doesn't have a name about an event four years ago, not the recent attack.

Some of the stuff in there is terrible if true - hacking facebook pages, pretending to be someone you're not - but criticising news organisations for wanting to talk to witnesses is ridiculous.

the media in this country is a fucking cancer

Also these sort of comments are ridiculous. Without the media we're all truly fucked.

.

I'm not sure what your point (lol) is, but yes I deliberately included the word "some" and deliberately emphasised it.

Clearly not all journalists are loathsome and clearly some do incredibly valuable work, at great personal risk to themselves.

But to invite comparison between the exposure of the Thalidomide scandal and the "doorstepping" of the victims of terrorism and their relatives, is a nonsense.

Not all journalists.

I guess my main point is people getting angry about journalists doing journalism.

Take the Telegraph example - it's not harassment to try and contact the family of people involved in an attack to speak to them. Repeatedly doing so or doing so when it was made clear they were unwelcome would be harassment. Sticking a polite note through the door with your business card isn't. Journalists gather and report news and this is one way of doing it - people might find that distasteful and an intrusion but the IPSO code of practice says this:

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.

^ agree with this, although it seems from the situation in question that the problem isn't necessarily individual journalists, but the fact they're so many of them trying to contact the same person - clearly the volume of attempts at contact is making the guy feel harassed. I'm not sure how this kind of unintended consequence can be avoided, though clearly it'd be better if it didn't happen.

in a country where the news agenda is set by the mind bogglingly rich white men in charge of just three companies who control nearly 70 per cent of national newspaper circulation, i think 'cancer' is putting it lightly.

this goes beyond harassing the recently bereaved. the intellectual dishonesty displayed by some journo's when they disseminate horse shit in the interests of their paymasters is appalling.

We've all seen the original house of cards right?

No wonder we all think a little inside, that maybe May is using the tragic events as a power play.

...it's not harassment to try and contact the family of people involved in an attack to speak to them.

And this is where you and I must disagree.

You might think the note polite; I think tracking someone down and personally posting it through their door intimidatory.

That IPSO consider, what others would deem the most basic standard of common decency, worthy of inclusion in their Code of Practice, only demonstrates how utterly useless they are as a regulator.

Not that including something in a CoP makes it valid, reasonable or justified.

Apart from which, what possible purpose does it serve? Who needs to be informed of what the family is experiencing? "Your son is missing: can you give us a sense of how that feels?"

Absolutely. It's a recognised problem in the industry and actually nobody thinks it's OK. But what's needed is cooperation and coordination which is difficult with news org's competing on the sames story.

... although it seems from the situation in question that the problem isn't necessarily individual journalists, but the fact they're so many of them trying to contact the same person...

Again I must disagree: he complained about both individual approaches and the sheer volume of them.

But even if I concede your point, if the industry can't determine how to resolve this "unintended consequence", then the only answer is to stop the practice.

in a country where the news agenda is set by just three companies who control nearly 70 per cent of national newspaper circulation

The good news is that newspapers are in decline, as is their influence. More and more people get their news from the internet and social media which are far more diverse. There is a rich choice of places to get your news now. I do actually think that outlets like Sky and the BBC overplay the power of the newspapers given this with their 'The Papers' type segments - there's no reason that those mind bogglingly rich white men should dictate the media agenda any more.

But even if I concede your point, if the industry can't determine how to resolve this "unintended consequence", then the only answer is to stop the practice.

Stop approaching sources? You're basically saying shut down the journalism industry. How would you propose reporting instead?

Do you actually think this is such a terrible problem that it justifies shutting down the fourth estate?

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the mailonline one of the most popular websites on the planet? my BiL reads it exclusively and he has some fucking awful opinions. He lives in suburban long island where there aren't even pavements, never mind corner shops selling british newspapers.

It's a recognised problem in the industry and actually nobody thinks it's OK.

But it continues.

... what's needed is cooperation and coordination which is difficult with news org's competing on the sames story.

So the harm it causes is known about and understood, yet it persists in order to preserve a competitive edge?

No wonder the public at large have no faith in journalists being responsible for policing their own behaviour.

But in the False Dichotomy World the only alternative is to completely shut down the journalism industry!

Won't someone think of the journalists!

Stop approaching sources? You're basically saying shut down the journalism industry.

Yes that's right.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Jesus fucking wept.

If the industry can't distinguish between harassing those involved in "cases involving personal grief or shock" and journalism, then it's small wonder that all (yes, all) journalists are viewed as having been tickled with the cunt-brush.

Maybe a good stop gap would be to ban advertising on any page in a newpaper or website next to stories of people dying.

I'm sure they'd be less rabid about sensitive stories if they weren't trying to rake in pageviews for their ad network affiliates off the back of it.

And this is exactly why I stopped freelancing for the British press! The briefs given are utterly atrocious and leave no room for compassion or empathy.

see also: comments sections on dead cyclist stories in the standard.