1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mourning family attacks TV photog and reporter

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by spikechiquet, Feb 22, 2011.

  1. Gomer

    Gomer Active Member

    Emotion makes people stupid. It certainly didn't appear to take much to send the mourners over the edge.

    Regardless of what the reporter said, the mourners did not handle the situation well. Once the attack occurred, neither did the reporting team. As soon as people come after you, you get out and call the cops. You do not stick around and chat.
     
  2. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    If they were attacking Fred Phelps' followers who were picketing their memorial this thread would be five miles longer and filled with adulation for the crowd.
     
  3. spikechiquet

    spikechiquet Well-Known Member

    No, I said I would never "stoop so low" as to walk up to someone mourning with a camera and mic and start asking questions...like I see some places do. That's what I am saying. I covered many of these types of stories and our reporters would never approach with a camera, a mic..hell, even a notebook, until they talked with someone first to break the ice.
    These are stressful times for these people, why make it worse?
    Too many times, there are jackasses that only see the story and not the people.
     
  4. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    Reporters are right in this instance, family is wrong. You can't expect to be on the sidewalk of an IHOP and not be fair game for video. I don't know crap about the TV business, but I watch enough TMZ to know public property is just that, public.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I think that this is a fairly interesting discussion point.

    When talking to John Q. Public, I'm always torn about this. If you approach sans reporting equipment to break the ice, you almost feel like your misrepresenting yourself. Think about how on-guard you are when a stranger walks up and starts chatting you up. They're trying to sell you something. They're trying to get you to join a cause. It's always something, and everything else is just used car salesman bullshit.

    At least if I approach with notebook and tape recorder, the potential sources know what I'm there for. It doesn't feel as icky.
     
  6. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    Not only that, but is your "breaking the ice" conversation on the record, or off? And once you grab your tools of the trade, and they no longer want to talk, what do you do then? That's a slippery slope.
     
  7. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    Have a feeling "What you gonna do? HUH? WHAT YOU GONNA DO?" were the last words of the dead guy, too.
     
  8. spikechiquet

    spikechiquet Well-Known Member

    "Hi, I'm Spike Chiquet with the SixO'Clock News Team. Do you mind if we talk?"

    As for off-camera talks, still on the record...you let them know...you can always say: "Mrs. Jones declined to talk on-camera, but did say...."
     
  9. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Their key mistake was coming up with the camera already on the photog's shoulder. If they approach and she's just carrying the camera they can probably avoid this.

    Similarly, when the people go apeshit the photog needs to keep rolling but take the camera off her shoulder and talk with them.

    It doesn't excuse the mourners' reaction at all, but it definitely helps to talk to someone before the camera starts rolling.
     
  10. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    No I have never worked in journalism and I am not pretending to know what goes on in that field.

    I am just talking as a member of the general public.

    What "greater public good" is in play here? If not TMZ money, the reporter is there to get tape for the telecast correct? That's $$ for the station. Plain and simple.

    I understand reporting on people who have voluntarily placed themselves in the public eye, suffering a tragedy does not qualify in my eyes. Going to a public place does not mean you automatically relinquish all privacy rights.
     
  11. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    Somebody was murdered the night before at this location. Any credible news organization NEEDS to be there to cover the story. The fact that mourners were there could have been incidental, and approaching them was just part of the job. But the general public needs to know the news part of the story. It has little to do with money, in my opinion.
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Again, putting up a public memorial in an IHOP parking lot in a busy part of town seems like a screaming red neon sign that you want to talk about the deceased. Most people do, in fact. Hell, look at the thread on Journalism Topics re: spnited.

    As far as your contention that no public good is in play, maybe we can stop reporting on everything tragic or unsavory all together, no? Since you seem to find the act of news-gathering-for-profit so unseemly. And maybe plaintiff's lawyers can all close up shop, too, right? That's money for the firm. Plain and simple.

    Do you work for free?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page