-
... 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...
Scilly.Suffolk-
Wot he said.
-
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.
Death knocks are one way of getting the facts right. By getting the facts right, journalists aren't just serving themselves, they're serving the readers of their news. You seem to be against death knocks full stop - presumably you'd rather read inaccurate news?
Funnily enough, journalists hate doing death knocks. Have a read of this:
http://www.mamamia.com.au/death-knocks-and-dealing-with-grief-why-journalists-do-what-they-do/Or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/28/phone-hacking-leveson-inquiryAll of your emotions in that situation tell you not to do it (I have friends who are journalists who have told me how horrible their first one was). But the rational part of your brain know that, as the local paper reporter in that research said, relying on others outside the family can give an inaccurate view of a situation. The idea that people should only come forward of their own volition is absurd. Who would you then rely on for the facts? The police? Would you rely on the police to always tell the truth? In light of cases like Stephen Lawrence? I wouldn't.
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.
That's kind of how a free press works... If you have the money you set up a media outlet. You employ journalists. Those journalists report what they think is newsworthy but also what their readers want to read. How would you have them decide what they should report otherwise?
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.
Cool. You're in great company on that one: Gary Lineker, Hugh Grant, Max Mosley and others who want fame but only on their terms. Max is funding the (essentially made up) regulator IMPRESS:
https://capx.co/the-british-press-could-soon-be-at-the-mercy-of-its-enemies/Isn't that public spirited of him?
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).
I'd say it's pretty balanced and sensible. And I'd say he's right: if you were bereaved, and a journalist took a load of untrue stuff off social media about your loved one without asking you, wouldn't you be pissed off that they hadn't spoken to you first?
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.
You realise that this is an argument in favour of death knocks, right?
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.
Don't worry, as I said you've got your increased press regulation off the back of Leveson. IMPRESS. Funded by Max Mosley, whose kinky Nazi orgies definitely have nothing whatsoever to do with his families (and his own) links to facism and who definitely wasn't photographed posing as a teddy boy in Notting Hill during the 1958 race riots.
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...
I agree with this bit :)
mi7rennie
Fox
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.