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.
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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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