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. I'm a little surprised by the folks who think this was the right call simply because the family was in a public place.

    For one thing, journalism does mean you can't necessarily worry about a subject's feelings. It doesn't mean you have to forfeit your sensibility as a human being.

    There are judgment calls every day in how to handle situations and dig in when you have a right to be there. But just because you have a right doesn't mean you need to exercise it. Journalists might recognize the open invitation a public memorial offers. So might prominent figures.

    These folks are neither. Well, OK, they became prominent figures in the aftermath of a tragedy that still left them grieving. But you think they had any idea as they tried to honor the person they lost that this now meant they had an obligation to be filmed?

    Folks here should understand this as well as anyone right now. Would you go stick a camera in the face of Ron Drogo's sister after she said she didn't want it there, just because she was in a parking lot at the time?

    In this situation, the brief footage is not worth enough to play any role whatsoever in creating this commotion. It just wasn't essential to the story. It was color. If it was essential to the news element, then, yes, it would be difficult but you have to suck it up and do it. And the concept of then pressing charges? Sorry, but that's just plain heartless to me. Again, you may have a right to do something. Doesn't mean you should exercise that right.

    Along with the human element, there's another key part here. As proudpittsburgher mentioned, you're actually not doing your job well at all by persisting in getting this shot at all costs. You're such a determined journalist that you're willing to unnecessarily agitate people in grief for a 10-second clip? Then go be a better one and report.

    Reporting doesn't just mean refusing to take no for an answer. It means having the diplomacy, tact and skill to accept it, then continue working toward what you want by walking a line not bounding over it. Camera-free would have been a good call to start. Earn the folks' trust. The key to this shot is showing the repercussions of crime and the pain it causes? Then delicately walk that line and attempt to earn the grieving person's trust; earn the right to show more than a 10-second clip. And if you can't? Then make the same judgment calls any good reporter does and assess the situation. There's not enough here to justify not only becoming the story, but changing the angle.

    OK, you wouldn't even have to start off camera-free, necessarily. If the cameraperson could have managed to get her shots without the family getting so upset, that would have been fine. If they had said nothing and complained later, I would have been fine with this. I wish people understood that the majority of time when we try to cover things like this, it is because we want to show the impact of crime and things like that.

    But once the family grew agitated -- and before physical contact -- there was no reason for the crew not to back off.

    There are situations when you have to suck things up and do things that upset people. I once wrote a story about a dead person that his son told me made him sick to his stomach and I felt the punch to my gut. But he followed up by saying it was accurate, as difficult as it was to deal with and he could respect that. What's to respect about filming a scene of mourners who don't want to be filmed?

    There just wasn't enough of an essential element to these shots to justify the insensitivity to the family and the alteration of a news angle.
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Recently, a young student at Mrs. Whitman's school died.

    The local rag wrote a straight news story on it.

    Among the things her fellow teachers complained about:

    (1) That the reporter called and quoted the student's father (he was clearly, by the way, cooperative and gave great background). Teacher: "That is not something I would have even thought about doing at a time like that."

    (2) That when the reporter called someone, he began by saying, "We got a tip that ..." They felt that this was an insensitive way to phrase it.

    (3) That he called the dead student's current teacher. She didn't even answer, as I understand it, but was "extremely shaken up that a reporter would call her."

    (4) That he called another teacher at that grade level.

    (5) That he called said teacher at 7 o'clock (too late, apparently).

    (6) That the story didn't explicitly clarify that the cause of death was still unknown (this might be a legitimate gripe, in the interest of preventing hysteria).

    (7) That the reporter should have just talked to the principal, and not reached out to teachers. (I noted that, from the reporter's standpoint, if he did that, people could just as easily bitch that the reporter should have talked to people who actually knew the student rather than a bureaucrat).
     
  3. Yodel

    Yodel Active Member

    This reminds me of a situation in my family a few years ago. My cousin and his friend were playing near a waterfall, and my cousin's friend stepped on some loose ground, slid over the waterfall and died. Horrible, horrible thing.

    My aunt denied the local paper access to my cousin (a teenager), and that's her right. No complaints. But the paper had to write a brief because a teenager had died. That's obviously newsworthy.

    Remember, there's only one witness, and didn't talk. So, the paper had to write general things like "The boy was playing with friends..." etc.

    My father called me and was ranting about how "wrong" the paper was. "He wasn't playing with 'friends,' he was playing with (my cousin)." At another time, I might have said something about how silly that was, to be upset at the paper for missing the story when the only source won't talk. But given the emotions of the day, I decided not to. It's just strange to see how people view this business or what their understanding is.
     
  4. JRoyal

    JRoyal Well-Known Member

    The messed-up thing is people will watch all of this when it's someone else, but when it touches them or someone close to them, then it's wrong and they thing people are stepping over lines.

    I think in the case that started this thread, we all seem to agree on a few things:

    1) The reporter had a right to approach the family in public, but the way he did it wasn't the best decision, and when the family started reacting negatively, the reporter and cameraperson should have backed off instead of staying there trying to argue

    2) The family overreacted. Acting violently as quickly as they did was bad and could lead to charges being filed.

    I can see where qtlaw is coming from that the family has a right to privacy, even in a public place, but I disagree that there is no reason to show them mourning. In some of these situations, an entire community can feel the loss, and they can connect with the family through the images that the media distributes. Sometimes, they connect with the family and become concerned about a broader issue (gun violence, violent crime in their community, gang violence, etc.). There are plenty of reasons to run this beyond money.

    That all said, when the family says no, back up. In this case, back up quickly. Don't argue with them.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page