« What do maps have to do with journalism? | Main | Free Kittens »
October 11, 2005
Reporters Should "have a responsibility to conscience"
I was really satisfied that The Elements of Journalism ended with a discussion of conscience and morality among journalists. Essentially a reporter must feel confident that they are providing facts and not embellishing a story. Of course the more graphic, scandalous, or intriguing a story the better the feedback from the audience will be. But, if you are reporting you must make sure you are not misrepresenting the facts just to sell the story.
In Chapter 10 the book gives the example of Michele Gillen. She was reporting on a claim that General Motors trucks had the tendency to ignite into flames when in a crash. Gillen had seen footage of this happening, but she also knows that NBC then tested the vehicles out and the same results did not occur. When a small fire did start it went out in 15 seconds. Gillen found out that the company was setting up a dramatic crash to use with the report. She called her boss and discussed her uneasiness with giving the report. Her boss decided that he would call the study "unscientific," but he continued with the rigged explosion which ended up being a major embarrassment for NBC. The boss believed the dramatic footage would "add to the report." That is not the job of a journalist; a journalist should provide the real factual news and not add to it.
In my own personal experience, I some times become aggravated by those journalists or news companies that lack conscience. I think so many issues are sensationalized to sell papers and get people to watch the news. One example is the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster. For a while this was the hot topic for every media group. Since so many companies were covering the same story, they had to try to make their story stand out. Often times I think this is done through the use of visuals. For weeks the television and newspapers were plagued by graphic pictures of deceased people, missing children, fire, etc. Was showing those pictures really a way to provide information, or instead to pull at heart strings so people would continue to watch a certain station? In my mind the dead bodies are a selling piece to the media, but what about the families who have to see these pictures of their husbands, wives, children, mothers, etc. Like I mentioned before this is a private opinion I have. I just do not think it is necessary to show dead bodies on television. A news reporter can say the number of fatalities and get the same message across, without using a deceased person as a selling tool.
Posted by JennaOBrocto at October 11, 2005 8:35 PM
Comments
I totally agree with you Jenna. I really liked this chapter as well, and I also think that a lot of reporters put this idea in the back of their head in order to sell papers. I agree with your opinion on showing pictures of dead bodies on television and in newspapers. I think it's horrible. You are so right. What if a little boy or girl turns the TV on only to see their Mommy or Daddy laying dead in the street? How traumatizing! It's horrible.
Posted by: Chera Pupi at October 12, 2005 1:59 PM
I think the Katrina pictures were also a tool to encourage more people to donate. Very useful.
I disagree. I think the dead should get camera time. Simply stating the number of deaths doesn't have nearly the same effect as showing them. Sometimes a number is just a number.
Posted by: Kayla Sawyer at October 12, 2005 10:56 PM
I can understand your feelings about tragic images on television, but when you think about it, dead bodies appear on television all the time, in TV shows and in movies.
I think that these kinds of tragic images should be shown in the news media, because there they have real meaning -- as opposed to in TV shows and movies, where they are purely entertainment -- and they are much more powerful than words.
As for kids turning on the TV and seeing a loved one lying dead in the street... Chances are they'll have to see them lying dead in a coffin, too, sooner or later, so I really don't see how it could be particularly traumatizing. Sure, they won't look neat and laid out properly, but the graphic images used by broadcast journalism are usually only aired for a few seconds at a time, and with some discretion.
Mind you, I'm not trying to sound heartless... But there is some logic to be applied here.
Posted by: ChrisU at October 13, 2005 9:57 AM
I see both of your points. It could be helpful, but it is also disrespectful. The dead bodies that we see on television all of the time are not real. They aren't someone's family members.
Posted by: Chera Pupi at October 13, 2005 6:06 PM