Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The Positive Image of Media Cooperation, not Competition in Coverage of Tragedy


I support an American media summit in which ethics, competition and cooperation are examined, and higher standards are set and embraced by news professionals.

I support this because I have perspective—as a former news professional and now as a news consumer.

Our hearts broke together Friday as we watched the horror unfold in Newtown. For those of us in Oregon it was the second massacre we read about or reported on in three days.  We looked for answers. We held hands in churches and prayed together.  We grieved and we felt angry. Most of all we hungered for more information – photos, life stories and the answer to the biggest, still unanswered question—WHY?

We wanted the media to bring us all that and this is why we logged on and tuned in, in record numbers.

For media, feeding the audience took a wrong turn decades ago.  The purpose of providing information and promoting change –the social mission – is too often pushed to the back burner by the economic mission—one supported by the highest ratings, the most page visits..

Media have a tough job.  And usually, they do a good job.   Journalists are spouses, brothers, sisters and parents, too.  But they have to put that aside and rush from one unfolding story to another.  They often don’t get time to watch and truly take in what they are reporting; they are under pressure to knock on doors, land the first interview with the mother, to get the video on air first.

I led that charge as a four- time news director.  I knew the consequences of getting there last and getting left out.   I stopped just talking ethics and put it in writing in my Portland newsroom–no interviews with children who witnessed crime, no interviews with children at any sensitive story without parental permission, no cold door knocks for families of  tragedies but instead work through the pastor or a neighbor. Some of the team embraced it.  At least one of my own anchors questioned and challenged it.  Hopefully we all feel differently now and are willing to examine our standards.

The Newton tragedies present media with a real dilemma: news outlets cannot and must not ignore the story. In fact, they should now lead the discussions on gun control and mental illness.

But can they cooperate during tragedy? 

I support a summit to be called by the responsible media leadership in America. Come together and come out of it with a formal action plan.  Adopt a set of standards so that when tragedy reaches a certain level, cooperation, not competition, takes the lead.  Have a pool camera remain on the scene so  that small towns and shopping malls are not overrun with hundreds of news crews.  Agree not to knock on a door once a family has said “no, thank you.”  Have rules about using children in stories.  Adopt this policy for working media and teach it in schools to want-to-be journalists.  Social media is taking over fast and eroding our standards.  This may be your last chance to own accuracy and decency.

 

 

 

 

2 comments:

  1. I loved that policy. I have never understood what anyone gains when we knock on the door of someone who has just lost a loved one...how is that telling a story any better than the next guy? I would also usually agree with you about the children -- I have always thought it was wrong to interview kids (especially without parent permission) BUT..in this case..if these Newtown parents allowed their kids to tell the story ..then so be it. The kids were, unfortunately, the witnesses to the most sickening thing I have seen since 9/11. I never saw a reporter talking to a kid who didn't have a mom or dad by their side. I just hope this never happens again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are a good journalist, Kacey, and you're right--if the parents are there are agree to the interview most often it will land well with the audience. However, reporters must be sure that the adult on hand really is the parent or legal guaridan, and that the parents understand the potential impact of having a child speak. Nothing they say should put them in danger-describing a crime suspect who is at large for example. Nothing they say should cause them further trauma-- discussing being victims of sexual assault-for example. If they are too young to make the decision for themselves to go public then the coverage is harmful and serves no purpose. I don't have all the answers and no go longer get paid to have ANY of the answers but hope media leadership smarter than I will review the coverage, review standards and move forward with policy and practices that best serve news consumers. Lynn

    ReplyDelete