Discussion
  • Read More
    amgarreSam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:10pm

    There’s a way to do it right. A tweet is not it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Gary-Xamgarre
      10/01/15 4:14pm

      How else are they supposed to contact them then if there are no reporters at the scene? An innocuous tweet at someone who is already tweeting as a means for a conversation elsewhere seems as good as any.

      Now if they start doing a back and forth on Twitter, yeah, that’d be a little odd, but I always see them asking to slide into some DM’s.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Chris Mullin's Bartenderamgarre
      10/01/15 4:15pm

      What would you suggest then?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SplatworthySam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:32pm

    Dude, you are just way off on this one. Reporters can get all the info they need from the authoritiies. Reporters want to talk to the people involved because the ‘human interest’ angle appeals to audiences and having an audience keeps them employed. This is about getting ‘the scoop,’ or a channel 4 (or whatever) exclusive. It’s about ego and ratings and ultimately money and it is crude, tasteless, and insulting to some of us in the audience. They wouldn’t give these chumps the time of day, but the minute those chumps have something they want they’re your best friend.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BeyonSayKnowsSplatworthy
      10/01/15 4:38pm

      You’re right and wrong. It is most definitely about getting the scoop and the little details that put your coverage over the top of everyone else. But saying that reporters can get all they need from authorities runs completely counter to the very point of journalism.

      Getting all the info from authorities is how the murder of an unarmed person by police turns into a suspect with a gun was resisting arrest and the officer feared for his life.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      fightslikeagirlSplatworthy
      10/01/15 4:42pm

      Yes, because we totally want all information filtered through the authorities. That’s how you get the truth!

      eyeroll-gif.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Gary-XSam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:05pm

    Was it any less rude and insensitive when the New York Times began calling the family memes of the victims of 9/11, days after the attack, when the site was still smoking and no one even knew the complete death toll?

    I understand having to report the news and make rational sense of the irrational tragedies we must often persevere through, but it is a little rude to start using some family’s dank memes right after a tragedy imo.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sam BiddleGary-X
      10/01/15 4:08pm

      I MEANT FAMILY MEMBERS NOT FAMILY MEMES, SORRY TO ALL RARE PEPES WHO WERE OFFENDED

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sean BrodyGary-X
      10/01/15 4:14pm

      “Oh, so your family died.... wanna help pay my rent?”

      Defo rude

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    igotwordsSam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:17pm

    These reporters and journalists are doing thier job, but it’s difficult to not sound rude and be accused of being ‘too soon’ when they are asking a loved one, or a witness what they saw, or have they heard anything.

    The best news is gathered when the bodies are not cold, when the hurt is still raw, when the wound is still sensitive. Because it is in that time, when we get real information, before the lawyers, and the spin, and the PR wall. Not to create a counter narrative, but to hand the unvarnished truth to the viewer, and ask them to process it.

    It hurts, it’s rude and it feels wrong, but it is the closest chance news has to actually impacting the viewer... and giving real perspective.

    We shouldn’t like it, but we either dig for the truth... or we expect the lie.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MindGrapesigotwords
      10/01/15 4:40pm

      I agree. What passes for “news” now is a bunch of correspondents staring into the camera saying “We don’t know anything yet,” or “Details are not available...” while the event itself is still unfolding! It’s hard to gather all the facts when the facts themselves are still evolving.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      fondue processigotwords
      10/01/15 4:42pm

      Exactly. The further out you get from an event, the more likely eyewitnesses are to be influenced. They start to get “told” what they saw (especially if they’re children), whether by parents, other witnesses’ accounts, social media, lawyers, and everything else you said above.

      As a terrible analogy - you want the raw, crisp apple of a person’s experience, rather than the processed, cooked, transformed applesauce with all sorts of outside factors added in.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    brillowSam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:15pm

    Tl;DR: Being a journalist doesn’t absolve you from judgement over your rude behavior. Don’t go preaching about the public’s “need to know” because in most of these incidents the public doesn’t need to know anymore more than “there was an [event].”

    What Sam says is true, but he fails to make a case for what utility “reporting” serves in these incidents.

    Shoving mics in people’s faces when they’re in shock after seeing a bus explosion does nothing for that person. Getting the most immediate eye-witness information is also unlikely to tell the public something useful, though they will still enjoy seeing it. For example the round the clock hurricane of coverage after 9/11 largely served absolutely no public utility, the only thing is served was media advertising budgets.

    This isn’t “door knocking” it’s “mic shoving” and it only serves the reporter and the news agency. Just because journalism has become about getting the scoop 30 seconds before anyone else doesn’t mean that everyone else should have to be bothered by a reporter the moment something happens.

    There’s not much difference between this and the “ambush reporting” that Jesse Watters does for Fox News. In both cases you rudely approach someone you don’t know and demand they give you information for no other reason than you want it.

    Getting the information is your problem and if you’re an asshole about doing your job (i.e. making money) then people are gonna call you on it because they are right. Deal with it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ugotsitbrillow
      10/01/15 4:21pm

      You start with TLDR and then post this lengthy drivel? Nah.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Walafridbrillow
      10/01/15 4:28pm

      Shoving mics in people’s faces when they’re in shock after seeing a bus explosion does nothing for that person. Getting the most immediate eye-witness information is also unlikely to tell the public something useful, though they will still enjoy seeing it. For example the round the clock hurricane of coverage after 9/11 largely served absolutely no public utility, the only thing is served was media advertising budgets.

      Two points:

      1) I’ve (regrettably) covered a number of tragedies in my life. I’ve tried to be as sensitive as possible with those affected, and if someone doesn’t want to talk, I apologize and move on. But in my experience, the vast majority of victims want to speak with you. Whether it’s cathartic, whether it allows them to express outrage or whether they want to bring attention to an injustice, more people are willing to talk to reporters than not.

      2) When journalists don’t go to that fire or that crime scene, they’re telling the victims they don’t matter. If, God forbid, something like this ever happens to me, I hope someone is there to tell the story and maybe make it less likely this would ever happen again.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    A Media DudeSam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:54pm

    I think Mark was saying that tweeting at victims isn’t really “reporting” because it’s so lazy. Door-knocking, and even cold-calling, require actually going out and getting in touch with the source, not just replying to their tweet like every other reporter on Twitter. As a reporter, I think you’re better off tracking down her contact info.

    Of course, the non-reporters who are offended by reporting won’t like this, but you’re right that journalists need to do their jobs in times of crisis. I’m just not convinced that tweeting “PLEASE DM ME” alongside a dozen other producers is actually their job.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.A Media Dude
      10/01/15 5:08pm

      How else do you contact someone on Twitter other than tweeting at them? Would you rather they try to find their phone number and call them? Show up at their house? Their place of work?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PopChipsA Media Dude
      10/02/15 1:56am

      As I pointed out in my original comment, you gotta be careful with that door-knocking, though. If they got a hoe handy, you could be in a world of hurt.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    secretagentmanSam Biddle
    10/01/15 4:10pm

    I don’t like it, but I get it. What I do not get, and despise, is when reporters ask little kids about the death of their classmates/family. Just don’t.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Dammitpamsecretagentman
      10/01/15 4:42pm

      Actually, I can’t stand when they ask anyone about the death of their family member or friend. “How do you feeeel??” Um, the answer is always that they feel pretty fucking bad. It adds nothing to the story except gruesome voyeurism.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    tnsofkingsqnzSam Biddle
    10/01/15 5:07pm

    If that is journalism then why don’t I see any GM writers reaching out to witnesses and victims? Why are you spending your time defending reporters instead of doing what they’re doing? Do we really need this post?

    I really do get what you’re saying, but 99% of the time, the people doing this are TV producers who are just trying to get an exclusive scoop to compete with the other networks, to gain more viewers, just so they can ask the victims sensationalist questions right before the next commercial break.

    They don’t care about the story, they care about exploiting the emotional aspect of the story. What they’re aiming for isn’t journalism, it’s ratings.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PopChipsSam Biddle
      10/01/15 10:49pm

      Just be careful. You never know when they have a hoe at hand.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        CAPTAINOHPopChips
        10/01/15 11:44pm

        That was glorious. Thank you.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        rudi_freudePopChips
        10/02/15 2:34pm

        So, is this what we call a “hoedown”?

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      Climate RageSam Biddle
      10/01/15 4:06pm

      Very true. Doesn’t make it easy to look at it, but spot on.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Snail-Mail-BrideClimate Rage
        10/01/15 4:10pm

        “He uses a chokehold against a man who isn’t resisting, or throws a public housing resident to the ground while conducting a search of her apartment. The most potent weapon against such individual abuses is the intrepid bystander with a cell phone camera, but this time, no one is around to film. The only people who know about the violence are the cop, his partner, and his victim. Maybe he’ll do the right thing and report it. Maybe he won’t.”

        2 years. Word around town is it will be another 6 months, so.

        <a href="http://imgur.com/BvY4gBH"><img src="

        GIF

        " title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Climate RageSnail-Mail-Bride
        10/01/15 4:32pm

        Yeah, that’s the fear.

        Is it possible you meant to respond to me in a different thread? Your response looks like it was intended for here:

        http://gawker.com/the-epa-had-an…

        Reply
        <