-
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.
So your baseline is that we are all devoid of empathy. It's really quite hard having a reasonable discussion when people talk in such hyperbolic and insulting terms.
Anyway.
Photography and video produce far greater engagement than the written word, which is why there's always such an emphasis on collecting imagery.
And it can be hard to convey the scale of a tragedy without showing something of it.
Would the coverage have been so effective without images of the burning building? Would the upswelling of public support for our underfunded fire service have been as strong without the very moving images of exhausted firemen taking a break from battling the blaze on a street corner? To get all that imagery, photo and video journalists had to be there, on the scene, as the tragedy unfolded. And obviously a lot of the people directly affected were there too.
Talking to the victims of a tragedy is important for the wider public to understand how it affects them. And as I said before, sometimes people feel like they are being unfairly ignored if their story isn't told. There's often an understanding that getting their story out there is the best way to create pressure for change.
But in the immediate aftermath of an event, tensions are high, emotions are raw, and sometimes people mis-step. Yes, there's an important discussion to be had about how to be sensitive in those situations, and there are guidelines that not all journalists adhere to. They should. But in a very dynamic situation, sometimes mistakes are made.
I'm not defending the journalists in question. Maybe they overstepped the line - I don't know.
But there's a very strong line of thinking on this board that journalists should be compelled not report on things you don't like, that they should be compelled to report more on things you do like, and that we're all subhuman and violence against us is fair game.
I find that deeply disturbing.
h2o-
Not all journalists.
I know there's more to what you've written, but in context here, and recently where you've had the same defensive reaction to the same sentiments, this is what comes across in essence. Don't you see that?
"Fucking journalists"
"Ah but not all journalists. Let me point out the ways in which journalism is so noble and so difficult and without which humanity would be so much poorer." -
But there's a very strong line of thinking on this board that journalists should be compelled not report on things you don't like, that they should be compelled to report more on things you do like, and that we're all subhuman and violence against us is fair game.
There's some hyperbole and some generalisation. And a fair amount of it in what you just wrote. It's the internet. Anyway, this is in no way my argument, I'm stepping out.
-
You have skin in the game, hence how strongly you are responding and defending, I can understand that. I do think it means that you have a fixed viewing position though and you just keep saying the same things over and over again.
The "academic report" you posted pages back was tripe by the way.
The confusion seems to rest on what you consider reporting- productising individuals' grief is not reporting and you have made no compelling arguments for it.
-
I'm sorry for the hyperbole, it isn't meant as a personal attack. I am absolutely behind a free press which serves the public interest, and is not constrained on reporting on anything that is public.
It feels like you're still missing my point though. Both the images you raise in the first paragraph are what I would consider public realm, and part of the public tragedy to be reported on.
I don't need to have an interview with a victim to know that they have suffered a personal tragedy, and the details of that are none of my business, unless they chose to talk about it. Too much of the media currently seems to think that private suffering is fair game for a story, in my opinion
-
I'm not defending the journalists in question. Maybe they overstepped the line - I don't know.
(It's also a frustrating 'argument' to spectate because there isn't really much of one)
hoefla
salmonchild
branwen
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.