When the Pittsford varsity lacrosse player, Jeff Milano, collapsed while warming up for a game on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, his family was immediately placed in a difficult and hard situation. This got even more difficult when he passed away later that day.
Now, we all have experienced grief and what it means to lose someone close to you, someone you loved. That's indisputable.
What most of us haven't experienced is a swarm of media when something tragic, such as this, happens. I know I haven't. When my grandfather suddenly died in January, as a family, we dealt and grieved privately, granted it was no big news story. Without reporters. Without interruption.
I can only imagine that it would be difficult, even frustrating, trying to deal with a death so sudden and tragic while the media and reporters are crawling over each other trying to get to you so they can get the story. Jeff's mother certainly thought so.
Her guest essay, posted by Democrat and Chronicle, exposes a side of journalism that portrays us in a heinous-unfeeling-monsters kind of light. And, from what I read, I don't really blame her.
She notes later in the article that The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics does indeed state that we, as journalists, need to:
And she continues to make the claim that the media, throughout the duration of the tragedy, failed to do just that. Those reporters, she says, invaded and disregarded her privacy when she needed it most.
However, a comment to her essay, posted by Brad, aka "chilledbongo," argues that those journalists were required to blatantly disregard her privacy for the sake of the news story.
News is now? I understand that. I understand that nobody wants to read an article 3 weeks from today on a story that occurred yesterday. I sure wouldn't. But that's most definitely not the question raised here.
It's really a simple question of ethics. Did those reporters cross the line in order to get a story? Did Ms. Milano deserve her privacy to deal with her son's death privately? Were there other ways for those reporters to get the story, other than calling Jeff's hospital room?
I feel that the answer to all of these questions is quite simple: Yes.
"News is now" is NOT an adequate excuse to completely disregard the feelings and grief Jeff's family and friends must have been experiencing. There are certainly much nicer, kinder ways to get that story out there for the public And yes Brad, "chilledbongo," whoever you are, even in a timely matter.
Now, we all have experienced grief and what it means to lose someone close to you, someone you loved. That's indisputable.
What most of us haven't experienced is a swarm of media when something tragic, such as this, happens. I know I haven't. When my grandfather suddenly died in January, as a family, we dealt and grieved privately, granted it was no big news story. Without reporters. Without interruption.
I can only imagine that it would be difficult, even frustrating, trying to deal with a death so sudden and tragic while the media and reporters are crawling over each other trying to get to you so they can get the story. Jeff's mother certainly thought so.
Her guest essay, posted by Democrat and Chronicle, exposes a side of journalism that portrays us in a heinous-unfeeling-monsters kind of light. And, from what I read, I don't really blame her.
The world as we knew it had been destroyed... Breathing was difficult; thinking was impossible. We were barely able to stand on two feet.Interspersed throughout these horrific times was media behavior that was deplorable....
Early Thursday morning less than 15 hours after learning of my son's death, the phone rang in his hospital room. I picked it up to hear a TV reporter on the other end of the line. I almost ripped the phone out of the wall....
These hours were simply hellish. There was no way to escape the horror, shock and intense pain we felt immediately following Jeff's death. But the media's actions during this same time period were indecent, disrespectful and inhumane.
She notes later in the article that The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics does indeed state that we, as journalists, need to:
"Minimize harm ... show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.... Use special sensitivity when dealing with children. ... Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews ... of those affected by tragedy or grief. Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials. ... Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy."
And she continues to make the claim that the media, throughout the duration of the tragedy, failed to do just that. Those reporters, she says, invaded and disregarded her privacy when she needed it most.
However, a comment to her essay, posted by Brad, aka "chilledbongo," argues that those journalists were required to blatantly disregard her privacy for the sake of the news story.
Dear Ms. Milano:
I sympathize with your emotional mother's reaction to having been approached for interviews by the news media so soon after your son's tragic death. However, I must take issue with your reasoning that this was wrong.
Let me ask you: When the planes hit the twin towers in NYC on 9-11, would you have preferred that the news media wait several months to let you know about it so as not to offend the families of the 3,000 people who died?
If the president were to be assassinated tomorrow, would you think it best not have this reported for several weeks so as not to offend his family?
I could go on and on. The point is, news is now. When your son died, it was news then, not weeks later. It's shocking to find oneself in the middle. But that is how things work. It cannot and will not and should not ever be changed.
Brad
News is now? I understand that. I understand that nobody wants to read an article 3 weeks from today on a story that occurred yesterday. I sure wouldn't. But that's most definitely not the question raised here.
It's really a simple question of ethics. Did those reporters cross the line in order to get a story? Did Ms. Milano deserve her privacy to deal with her son's death privately? Were there other ways for those reporters to get the story, other than calling Jeff's hospital room?
I feel that the answer to all of these questions is quite simple: Yes.
"News is now" is NOT an adequate excuse to completely disregard the feelings and grief Jeff's family and friends must have been experiencing. There are certainly much nicer, kinder ways to get that story out there for the public And yes Brad, "chilledbongo," whoever you are, even in a timely matter.
Original link found at Romenesko.
No comments:
Post a Comment