This week in class we discussed the importance of doing your homework before an interview, as well as including some of that information in your story.
We also brought up the issue of what background information you have on someone that is unrelated to the current story. One specific example we discussed in class is remembering that people have feelings. When someone dies or there is a murder, there are grieving people on all sides. Greeley mentioned if someone had a previous DWI you wouldn't add that to a story about their death. That adds insult to injury on the part of the grieving family as well as tries to make a statement about their character.
This immediately reminded me of an issue I had when an article was written about the death of an acquaintance of mine. Check out the article here. In my opinion what The Cardinal did was judge Kyle.
What happened was an accident and the result of a stupid decision on his part. However, the day after someone dies is not the time to bring up their past. Kyle has a daughter, family and friends all trying to cope with the loss of their loved one.
Some of the comments made show I wasn't the only person questioning this reporting...and some stand up for it.
One comment says: "This article is Unfair and not right! I don't know Kyle personally but a lot of my friends do and reading this article brings tears to my eyes because whoever wrote this doesn't have a heart!"
The decisions Kyle made shouldn't be used to judge his character. I feel as if the article is saying, "Hey look he died speeding, but it's okay because he did this in the past." It's not okay. People do change, especially after two years. In addition, the crimes he committed weren't hurtful to others. He was considerate of other people, loved his family and had people who loved him.
If you look at what he did in the past. He sold coke...it happens. I'm not saying it's a good thing or condoning it, but he was looking for a way to make money and made a stupid decision. A stupid decision doesn't make someone a bad person. He set up arson to light his dad's house on fire so that his dad would receive the insurance payout. While this is wrong and illegal on all accounts, what it says to me is: this is a kid who is dealing with his family's money issues and trying to "help." Family financial issues can be extremely intense. Kyle was not smart in his decision, but his motives weren't to cheat the insurance company or to risk firefighters lives...he was trying to help his dad.
I believe the way the background information is reported in the story also makes a strong judge on character. The way it is written shows that the reporter is thinking: He was a bad person. ...As reporters we are taught not to editorialize. In my opinion, even though the reporter didn't come right out and say Kyle is a bad person, that is exactly what this reporter did.
One other comment reads: WOW way to go reporter JERKS.
As a journalist, I hate to see this, but I see where they are coming from. It is hard if not impossible to set black and white guidelines and rules for when and what to include and when to holdback. But, in my opinion we have to remember to be human. Always think about who your story is affecting. Do those people deserve to hurt more from what you are reporting. If they will be hurt or be effected by what you write, is it that important? If Kyle were a public figure, maybe some background information would have been okay to use...maybe not.
Who knows what the right answer is, but I think everyone should remember to be sensible.
RIP Kyle.
No comments:
Post a Comment