-
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-
What seems to be clear to everyone outside of the media bubble is that there are two different levels of story here.
There is a public tragedy, which encompasses 12 known deaths, underfunding of fire precautions, and potential issues with cladding, and a very intimate private tragedy of both those who have lost loved ones, and those who have lost their homes and might never feel safe living in a flat again.
No one is criticising the media for covering the first part - that is their remit. Instead people are criticising the media for focusing blindly on the second part, even when it is clearly unwelcome. There is a perception that the news cycle moves quickly because the media have learned that personal tragedies sell issues, so they focus on one persons tragedy until it is played out and then move on to the next, rather than actually do any journalism on the public front.
You say it is hard to know where the line is on something like this. I would posit that it is clear to anyone with any degree of empathy that in a situation like this, the line is pretty far away from people suffering unless they explicitly invite you over it.
If you wanted to stick your camera in someones nose, Gavin Barwell seems a prime target and might actually unearth something relevant to the public tragedy.
branwen
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