You are reading a single comment by @kimchi and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
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
kimchi
h2o
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.