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.
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.