Untitled
Caught a piece in the paper today about the funeral of the young woman recently killed in these Vancouver gang wars. What particularly jumped out at me was the part about some of the mourners swearing at members of the media. This is, in my opinion, entirely justified and frankly I'm surprised the intrusiveness of the media does not lead to serious conflict more often.I've never been comfortable with the practice of thrusting a microphone and/or camera into the personal space of someone trying to come to terms with a recent tragedy. I think one of the things that tipped me off early that I wasn't going to go very far as a journalist was the fact I wasn't willing to go knocking on people's doors or chasing them down the courthouse steps just to get a totally predictable comment. Doing that to a suspected criminal is one thing -- and there's a good case to be made against doing that also. It's quite another to be lowering one's personal standard of how to treat a fellow human being, just for the sake of professional performance.
I recall one occasion during my brief stint working in a TV newsroom: There had been a crash up-island killing four kids. We'd obtained the last name of one of the victims, and I was tasked with going through the Nanaimo phone book calling up all the matching households, trying to make contact with his family. What was I to do if I got through? Arrange an on-camera interview I guess, or failing that, simply confirm the address so someone could go stake out the place. I'm glad I failed in that task -- the whole exercise made me sick to my stomach.
Another time, watching some raw footage of a car crash, I happened upon a close-up of a woman's face -- bloodied, shaken up, still behind the wheel. I asked one of the reporters what the rule was on using such an image on the news. I learned that so long as the incident happens in a public place, they can and probably will show you on the 5 o'clock news. Should a complaint come in about the use of that shot, the station would probably oblige and take it out of future reports, if any -- but it seems that would only happen upon request. By then, it's too late. The subject is embarassed, pissed off, or perhaps even dead.
So be careful what you put on Facebook -- it could wind up on the air if you meet a tragic, premature end. Such photos are used all the time now by media outlets, which I think is lazy, but admittedly resourceful. The realtor who was murdered in Saanich last year will be remembered by most through her Facebook party pics. The law is kind of muddy about broadcasting such photos, but I certainly know it's not right morally. They're trying hard enough to get those images on their own -- let's not help them.
A bit of Googl'ing found me the following on this subject:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/internet/facebook-legal.html
posted by spongeknuckles @ 4:08 p.m.
2 Comments:
Very interesting post. Living at Pandora and Cook, I am usually at the scene of an accident faster than the media and often the police as well. I'll hear it, and run down. I wont take photos of anyone in an accident since, like yourself, I find it invasive of a persons mental and emotional space, and exploitive. I don't mind shooting an empty and dinged up car though, that's another matter which I don't think is disrespectful because it is less personal in nature. The car wont be self-conscious.
Looking through the phone book for one of the victim's families would have made me sick to my stomache as well. I would certainly have a moral issue with it, and it would make me also question my career. There are so many stories out there, why does media still feel that "if it bleeds, it leads?" I don't know myself.
The media's role is not only informing the public, but also educating the public, and there are many, many, many matters that the public could be better educated on. I'd like to the media spending more time explaining concepts that are not easy to understand but important to understand, such as time spent covering the upcoming provincial election, what the issues are and why it might matter to any demographic out there capable of voting. That, to me, would see the media fill a more meaningful and productive role in our society.
All that said, if the family wanted to speak to the media about a tragedy, I would be happy to see the media act as a conduit for something like drunk driving, for example. I think the family, in those situations, must be the initiator though.
Yes you do see examples of people wanting to talk about their troubles, as an example to others. It would be nice if reporters would keep a compassionate distance, but I rarely saw that in my experience.
The trouble is our short attention span -- since each piece is chewed up and spit out, it had better pack a punch in order to be memorable. There's where they get the need for the bleed for the lead! Appreciate your thoughts Davin.
Post a Comment
<< Home