-
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.
h2o-
I appreciate where you're coming from with this, and I absolutely agree that interviews with survivors/victims/eyewitnesses etc when they're ready can provide an informative and vital part of news reporting.
However it does seem the line gets crossed and journalists end up pushing people for information when they're really not ready. The Twitter thread I was talking about earlier provides an insight in to why this kind of reporting can be very indeed https://twitter.com/DrEm_79/status/866948006498717697 -
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.
I don't think anyone has suggested this. What people have suggested is that in the case of personal individual tragedy, where an outsider cannot gauge how the victim will react, then the onus should be on minimising the harm caused by accosting people who are not ready to be interviewed, especially when there is clearly a wider public tragedy which can be reported on without traumatising individuals.
It feels like most of the people in this discussion are trying to focus on this specific issue (that it is a private tragedy that has no place in the public eye, unless put there by the individual affected), whilst you are trying to generalise it into a statement of "all press are evil, and they should only report what I want them to say"
-
Who's saying it's blanket wrong to interview people who are ready to be interviewed?
It's the methods of ascertaining whether a victim is ready that is being queried.
Do you
a: run in with a mic and a camera firing questions
b: approach a victim with empathy, free of mic or camera and offer some sort of kind words before asking if the victim feels up to answering some questions on camera or just maybe on tape and their words being used in print or onlineIf you think A is either not happening or that people are wrong to take umbrage with A then that's where the issue lies.
kimchi
branwen
NurseHolliday
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.