-
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.
-
nailed it tho.
-
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.
I haven't yet, I'm thinking about it. I just don't see the point of arguing with the circle-jerk of anti-journalist sentiment here any more. There are cunts and good people in all walks of life, but if I say that I get tarred with the 'not all men' brush. By the kind of people who'd probably argue to the back teeth that it's wrong to tar all cyclists with the actions of a few dickhead RL jumpers.
@boristrump posted this excellent example of a journalist giving a voice to someone affected by the situation in a format that will reach people who don't read papers.
https://twitter.com/madamyez/status/875155162666545157
This is why I'm not going to accept that it's blanket always wrong to interview people who are ready to be interviewed shortly after a tragedy. It's important people hear things like this.
deleted
h2o
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.