-
Do you really think that there will not be enough coverage of individuals suffering in the aftermath of this to cause some change?
I really struggle to understand why the media can't just leave well alone in the immediate aftermath. Cover the bigger incident, and be open to people seeking you out to talk, but don't go around sticking a camera in peoples faces for a few days
branwen-
The news cycle moves very quickly, and these things can drop out of the public eye if they're not covered. I said that I accept that the journalists in question may have gone too far in this case. But it's hard to know where the line is - I posted some academic studies earlier in this thread that went into the issue and showed that some people feel like their plight is being ignored if it's not covered. And I distinctly remember the media being heavily criticised in this thread for not covering things that people here wanted to be all over the news.
It's a damned difficult job to do, and we don't always get it right. I don't get why we deserve so much blanket hate, though.
h2o
Reports from journalists on scene at the time were that they were asked to move on, and one crew didn't move on quickly enough.
Completely understand the sentiment - it seems voyeuristic to film a situation like this. There's always a delicacy to covering tragedies. Maybe some people on the ground got it wrong, and if they were overly intrusive, then that was definitely a stupid, insensitive thing to do that they shouldn't have done.
But there's a balance to be struck. Without coverage of the tragedy, we're unlikely to see the political pressure build enough for the government to take action to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. And images are much more effective at conveying news than words.