In the news

I'll try and find it, but there was a very good Twitter thread about how the intrusive interviewing and hounding of people by the press following events like this directly feeds in to retraumatization and the development of PTSD etc. It's not necessary for accurate reporting of the news, and causes a lot of harm.

this is heartbreaking. it's like a modern day version of that scene in that movie where corey feldman stands outside that girl's window with a boombox playing phil collins.

French wine too. The fucking traitor.

that's trump wine.

hang on - he's referencing marilyn monroe isn't he??

EEEEEUW!!!

Wonder if all the bottles are that size, so they look normal when Trump is holding them

I think this is the specification of composite panel used on the building, it's PIR

https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000

Now look at the difference in performance between rockwool and PIR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0shn-0UFHh4

Either that, or he isn't a close enough mate to get a full size bottle.

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.

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

Reporting on something and putting s massive microphone in the face of a crying woman and practically shouting "A 12 year old boy! Your nephew is a 12 year old boy and he is still missing so he could be dead!" are not the same thing.

Where did you see this?

Reporting on something and putting s massive microphone in the face of a crying woman and practically shouting "A 12 year old boy! Your nephew is a 12 year old boy and he is still missing so he could be dead!" are not the same thing.

I agree. Hadn't seen anyone do that, but for the sake of argument.

I do think there's a place for talking to victims when they're ready, though. It's through viscerally-felt stories that people are motivated to take action, and the human element is crucial.

Problem is that it's hard to ask them if they're ready without contacting them, and if they're not ready, they probably won't appreciate the contact.

I think I'm going to put this thread on ignore. Yes, maybe some of my responses have been hyperbolic too, but it's not been easy reading some of the sentiments on here.

Boris' thoughts on the fire service. Everything is just a game to him.

https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/874986965766205441

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)

That is absolutely brutal, the difference is stark, you wonder why the PIR stuff is not just completely banned, scary stuff!

Tory landlords

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/full-list-landlord-tory-mps-who-voted-against-making-properties-fit-human-habitation-1537725

Wow...

Curious URL slug is curious

I think I'm going to put this thread on ignore. Yes, maybe some of my responses have been hyperbolic too, but it's not been easy reading some of the sentiments on here.

If only the people being interviewed by (some) reporters had an ignore button to escape the uneasy feeling following engagement with sentiments they're not happy with.

^ Before I'm accused of promoting the censorship of the free press, that's to be taken with a large pinch of sarcasm.

You filthy Stalinist swine!