Rocky Mountain News "tweets" dead boy's funeral, now (thankfully) being savaged

I can just see an editor saying, "I just told him to go and "twitter" I didn't think this is what he would send back.

Fire them all.

 

A running PXP of a child's funeral crosses the line -- especially when it was as empty as that was...
Lovely and talented probably thinks it's cool.

 

Was surprised they didn't have a tease on the page reading:

Check out our online galleries of the funeral! Purchase photos!

 

A moment-by-moment breakdown of a bowel movement would have been more tasteful.

RMN has really screwed this one up. Royally.

 

This may be an all-time low. I haven't felt this bad about journalism since Jayson Blair.

 

First, this is ghastly. Let's get that out of the way right now. Defending is nearly as bad. Aside from that, it had close to zero value as anything enlightening.

That said, I have a Twitter account. I don't use it that often, but I now get Poynter updates on it, and it has potential as a news tool if properly used. A Colorado TV station recently used it to get information on a tornado somewhere in the state.

As noted in one of those stories, Twitter was used to do updates from the Democratic convention, and it's conceivable there was something of value there.

There are a lot of veterans who are increasingly bitter about New Media, but just because an application is used for something wrong doesn't mean the application itself is without any merit.

 

If for nothing else -- I think Twitter could be particularly good at a big event (like a golf major or an Olympics or such) where you might have a lot of writers/photogs spread out and could be used to communicate with each other.

Shooter 1 could say he's on the 18th hole. Doug Ferguson could report he's following Tiger's group, etc.

Not for publication, just so everyone knows what is going on. Better than walkie-talkies.

 

OK, I'm willing to ratchet this up a notch.

I read the Fayetteville link. And while there's an airy "what's the big deal?" tone to the whole thing that's pretty annoying -- standards, what standards? -- a pretty good point was made.

If this reporter had gone to the funeral and simply written a 15-inch story about what happened at the funeral, with the exact same details, and written this tagline:

"At 10:40 a.m., family members shoveled earth onto the coffin."

There wouldn't be a peep. We'd say it was a tasteful, respectful account of the end to a tragedy.

How is this different? We intrude on people's lives and private moments similarly every day.

For the record, I think it IS different. It simply seems that way.

But how?

 

Simple video, with no commentary, is the only treatment this funeral needed for the Web outside of a scene-setting story for the newspaper.

This makes it look like to the general public: yep, all you need is a blackberry and a desire to write to be a reporter.

 

Here is a link to the story.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/10/youngest-victim-baskin-robbins-crash-mourned/

 

There is a difference between writing a thoughtful story about a funeral and treating a fucking kid's funeral like it's play-by-play at a sporting event.

You want to know why newspapers are dying?

Because people fucking hate us when papers do shit like this.

Can you blame them?

 

Re: Rocky Mountain News "tweets" dead boy's funeral, now (thankfully) being sava

The story is fantastic. Just read it and, frankly, am a bit emotional. Maybe because my little one is three, so I can relate to the emotions, trying to put myself in the same position as that father. (Don't feel like watching the video, so no idea what that's worth.)

That said ... if I were in his position, I'd be at the reporter's doorstep, waiting for him to return home. When they let me out, I'd then be at the editor's doorstep. Pain would occur.

I'd have a friend standing by to twitter the beat-downs.