In the news

having been tickled with the cunt-brush.

I'm just glad I have a new phrase to use

it's a keeper.

army now being deployed on our streets. proper right wing wet dream territory this.

just don't mention the fact that it was may who shitcanned 20 000 plod when she was HS.

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

I may have misphrased slightly, but I wasn't excluding the point that one or two of them may have been individually awful - more highlighting that a large part of it was the volume.

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.

I don't know if you're aware of the problems involved in coordinating action in a competitive industry, but it's really quite hard, for legal reasons as well as because of the competition. So it's very easy to say that it should stop, much less so to figure out how to do so. As I said.

The letter through the door wouldn't have been so bad if it was 40 years ago or he happened to live in a cave with no Internet, as it is people had already been bothering him through various social media outlets, which he obviously didn't want, so then it was stepped up to phone and house calls, that's harassment.

shoulda just tapped his phone, old school is still the best school.

So it's very easy to say that it should stop, much less so to figure out how to do so.

How about amending "In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.", to read "In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries of those involved will be co-ordinated by IPSO, in order to avoid further distress or the perception of harassment caused by the method, nature or volume of individual approaches."?

It's not about 'approaching sources' it's about whether it's in the public interest. Gossip about an obviously upset/bereaved relative isn't in the public interest.

Stop approaching sources?

There's your problem. It's the journalist's choice whether some random bloke looking for his brother is a 'source' or not. If my brother ever goes missing after a terrorist attack I would just be a confused, angry and upset individual with no particular insights into terrorism or any other current affairs.
And journalists aren't stupid, so anyone approaching me in such a scenario would only be interested in bottling my tears and selling them on for a profit, I would not serve the purpose as a valuable 'source' by any definition of the term.

this

It's not gossip, it's the reporter trying to get their facts right and offering the family a chance to give their comment. That is part of balanced reporting - getting comments from all sides.

The Editor of the Press Gazette has written something about this today:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/why-death-knocks-are-a-difficult-but-essential-part-of-the-job-for-journalists/

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.

Ironically it persists because that's what the readers want. But also because getting journos from lots of different outlets to do something is like herding cats. The fact remains that if they don't try to get comment they're not reporting the story properly.

Not all readers.

But seriously, that's not a good enough excuse. Readers (or anybody) have no right to be privy to the feelings or emotions of a grieving family. If they want to give it willingly and come forward, then fine, that is their right. But for anyone other than someone specifically trained to deal with or therapise the feelings of grief to ask someone to speak candidly about how they are feeling, is hugely irresponsible. Who knows what they could be triggering.

Telling me what the parents of an murdered child or brother of a missing person is feeling does nothing to provide me with more facts or information about the incident.

Leave the fact collecting to the police.

It is gossip and largely of no value. The piece you link talks about instances where the bereaved have had something to say, I don't think that matches to mass impact events like this.

Look at the case that started this conversation- guy's brother was at concert, hasn't heard from him. What could possibly useful to hear from him? Does his concern/anxiety/confusion really need to be confirmed by a journalist? What value is being added?

Journalists seem to think they are in an exulted position performing some kind of public service- no they are content relayers for large corporate machines, many of them heavily biased and under dodgy control.

Shit, Dan's brother didn't make it.

hot take here from the daily mail.

journalism in the UK.

Time for an internet break I think. Anyone joining?

Depressing that a lot of people will read that and quietly nod-frown.

The mail are responsible for a much greater radicalisation.

Right here.

"the fact is that more than 3,000 jihabis are based in the UK"

citation needed.

I wonder how he is feeling now- if only someone could send him a message on facebook, twitter or snapchat, or even better doorstep him then we would know.

Heartbroken, according to twitter and Facebook. He's a pretty online person so contact via there isn't inappropriate for messages of condolence, but badgering for news stories by the press with escalation to other means is out of order. Even if the telegraph didn't try twitter or whatever first they knew others would, it's kind of like saying "I knew there would be a bunch of people trying to get his attention by throwing pebbles at his bedroom window, so I threw a brick through the living room instead."
Anyway, RIP Martyn.

when are journalists going to apologise for and publicly denounce the actions of fellow journalist alex jones?

http://www.newsweek.com/infowars-alex-jones-calls-manchester-victims-liberal-trendies-promote-open-614177

/amidoinit etc

... offering the family a chance to give their comment.

It's not for a lack of means or opportunity that people choose to remain silent, or alternatively contact the press should they wish to: journalists such as those we're discussing are serving no-one but themselves.

... that's what the readers want.

Even if that is true, considering their modest circulations, it is arrogant in the extreme for journalists to justify their behaviour with the wants of a such a small minority.

... because getting journos from lots of different outlets to do something is like herding cats.

It's almost as if a Code of Practice is required...

A Code of Practice issued by an external regulatory body, who's membership is not optional and who's rulings are enforceable in law that is.

The Editor of the Press Gazette has written something about this today

His article is risible.

It's not enough that the same-old, lame-old, self-justifying mitigations are rallied to the cause (although it being disrespectful not to contact the family is a new one on me and warrants a special mention, if only for its complete disengagement from reality).

No, we're supposed to swallow the idea that hacks shoulder this burden unwillingly, spurred on only by their earnest desire to serve the greater good.

"I'll take one Sword of Justice, a Shield of Truth and a Heavy Heart please."

And the onus is on the public to contact IPSO ("IPS-who?"), in order not to receive a "death knock"? Rather than journos acting with a presumption of "not behaving like a cunt"?

And the Liverpool John Moores University report cited, does not find that the public welcome a doorstepping. It finds that they're less than keen on hacks resorting to Facebook et al when the door is slammed in their face!

But it seems you're not the only one who "sees no ships": "One daily newspaper journalist described it [plundering social media] as ‘a virtual version of taking comments from cards and flowers at the scene'”.

Oh.

I see.

Mind you, it's little Moores (I thang yew!) than a barely opaque attack on calls for Moores (Have you tried the veal?) press regulation off the back of Leveson, so I'll be using my copy to wipe the arse of an ursine forest-dweller.

Were it not for the undue influence these widely unread rags have (ever expanding, cheap-to-produce current affairs shows on radio and TV, plugging gaps in their schedule with "What The Papers Say" slots) and the undue political influence their owner's have (thanks to the undue influence of their widely unread rags), they'd have collapsed under the weight of public disinterest by now.

Much like the monarchy and the church. But don't get me started...

Wot he said.