Heartless journalists

Freddie59

kincsem wrote: »

Journalist probably sent by editor.

My God. Has it REALLY come to this? Those poor parents. May she rest in peace.

the_syco

MagicSean wrote: »

I just want to draw your attention to the part I have put in bold. What kind of heartless bastard tries to interview a grieving father within 24 hours of him losing his young daughter? I'm disgusted.

Most papers just ring them.

Bosco boy

Helix wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

How someone could have the neck to compound the agony of these people at this time says what type of person they are and the type of profession the represent. No justification in my opinon can be made for calling to that families door at this time! They did not need it and the public didn't need it either. Shame on the journalist and shame on the paper.

the public dont need it, but by christ they want it

Decent intelligent folk don't want it and I'd like to think they are in the majority!

Jimmy Bottlehead

I don't see what's heartless - people want news... how the hell do they expect to get all the details without the journalist doing every possible bit of research and interviewing?!

biko

hondasam wrote: »

This is the problem, we all read it, does that make us as bad as the journalist?

Yes, we demand - they supply.

Imagine if there was a accident, or a murder, and the news would be:
"we'll give it a few day out of respect for the family. Then you'll get the info on the accident/murder"...

People are curious, just check the local forums for "I saw an accident, anyone know anything?" threads.
People don't even wait for the news to arrive, they actively seek it out.
On-line rubbernecking.

This is why journalists will interview the grieving parents asap.

Bosco boy

biko wrote: »

hondasam wrote: »

This is the problem, we all read it, does that make us as bad as the journalist?

Yes, we demand - they supply.

Imagine if there was a accident, or a murder, and the news would be:
"we'll give it a few day out of respect for the family. Then you'll get the info on the accident/murder"...

Nothing justifies that type of journalism, decency should show them where the line is. Maybe that's why so many people have stopped buying these rags.

Bosco boy

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

I don't see what's heartless - people want news... how the hell do they expect to get all the details without the journalist doing every possible bit of research and interviewing?!

A percentage of the population want child porn, does that mean we should print it for them?

Jimmy Bottlehead

Bosco boy wrote: »

A percentage of the population want child porn, does that mean we should print it for them?

This isn't a percentage - this is a majority we're talking about. The PUBLIC want these details.

I'm a qualified journalist, (not working in the media at present) though my field was sports journalism. At the end of the day, people want the juiciest, grimiest, most shocking facts and quotes out there - the journalist provides what the public WANTS.

Nothing sells like bad news, unfortunately. And people can harp on all day about how heartless journalism is, question the integrity of approaching a grieving family, and so on... but unless there was a public interest funding all this, both financially and socially, it wouldn't be done.

There's the unpopular post of the day quota filled.

MagicSean

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

This isn't a percentage - this is a majority we're talking about. The PUBLIC want these details.

I'm a qualified journalist, (not working in the media at present) though my firld was sports journalism. At the end of the day, people want the juiciest, grimiest, most shocking facts and quotes out there - the journalist provides what the public WANTS.

Nothing sells like bad news, unfortunately. And people can harp on all day about how heartless journalism is, question the integrity of approaching a grieving family, and so on... but unless there was a public interest funding all this, both financially and socially, it wouldn't be done.

There's the unpopular post of the day quota filled.

I disagree. The public want certain details but not these ones. The public would be perfectly satisfied to know that a ten year old girls was hit by a car and killed. They don't want her name, address, daily planner or to know how that her parents are devastated.

Dermighty

Why the **** would you want to talk to the family?

Reporter: How do you feel regards what happened your daughter?

Father: ...

Dudess

People who aren't just bowing down and saying "Oh what an evil bastard" are not being contrarians or arguing for the sake of it - they're looking at the bigger picture, and some of them may have worked in the area. Very easy to judge if you haven't.
I'm surprised at the shock expressed over this - it happens all the time. You'd swear no recently bereaved parent was ever asked for a few words by a journalist before.
I think it's absolutely reprehensible practice by newspapers, and I know that plenty of journalists have about as much ethics as a sewer rat, but in this day and age there are a lot of junior reporters who are treated like dirt, paid a pittance, and have to do as they are told or they're out, as there is a queue of people willing to take their place. Many give it up, but stick with it for a while in order to gain a career doing what their ideal is.
A lot of misinformed shooting the messenger here.

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't buy this "just doing their job" bs.
If part of my job was to be so cold and callous, then I would say "no".
If that got me fired, well so be it.
I'd rather do something that didn't cause upset to grieving families.

Well it's very easy to say that when you're not in that position - people need jobs though to pay bills and stuff.
I never understand the dismissal of "I was just following orders" by people who weren't in the person's shoes.

themadchef wrote: »

I know everyone has a job to do, but there should be an unwritten rule, a line in the sand in every profession imo.

Yep, but that line has to be set by those in charge - the journalist doesn't always have much power.

abouttobebanned wrote: »

I studied journalism in college and it was a great education for me. I learned, first and foremost, that I didn't want to be a journalist.

Yup - same here. Cases like this are exactly what made me ditch that career plan.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

People can say that the journalist was doing his job. But surely a little bit of tact, cop on and sensitivity is something you would expect from any competent journalist.

How do you know the journalist didn't display those traits?

flutterflye

Dudess wrote: »

Well it's very easy to say that when you're not in that position - people need jobs though to pay bills and stuff.
I never understand the dismissal of "I was just following orders" by people who weren't in the person's shoes.

Well I know myself, and I know I wouldn't do it under any circumstances.
Everyone needs to pay bills, but not everyone has to be heartless to do so.
I will always dismiss "I was just following orders" as a completely ridiculous way to try and pass off the blame to someone else.
Stand up for what is right over what you are told to do ffs.

Dudess

flutterflye wrote: »

Well I know myself, and I know I wouldn't do it under any circumstances.
Everyone needs to pay bills, but not everyone has to be heartless to do so.
I will always dismiss "I was just following orders" as a completely ridiculous way to try and pass off the blame to someone else.
Stand up for what is right over what you are told to do ffs.

The person who makes the decision and orders it is the one to blame - blaming the person who is sometimes coerced into doing it, is scapegoating, which is also heartless.
A reporter following orders is not necessarily heartless - their boss might be, but you've no idea that they are. They could be threatened with a sacking, and as you said, everyone needs to pay bills.

Jimmy Bottlehead

flutterflye wrote: »

Well I know myself, and I know I wouldn't do it under any circumstances.
Everyone needs to pay bills, but not everyone has to be heartless to do so.
I will always dismiss "I was just following orders" as a completely ridiculous way to try and pass off the blame to someone else.
Stand up for what is right over what you are told to do ffs.

Happily for you, you're in a position where you can choose.

Those with student loans, bills, repayments, etc. aren't in such a position.

I also love how people assume the journo's just turned up shouting for quotes... I would like to think that even though they've been given a poxy assignment, they would go about it with respect towards the family.

MagicSean

Dudess wrote: »

The person who makes the decision and orders it is the one to blame - blaming the person who is sometimes coerced into doing it, is scapegoating, which is also heartless.
A reporter following orders is not necessarily heartless - their boss might be, but you've no idea that they are. They could be threatened with a sacking, and as you said, everyone needs to pay bills.

Following orders has never been an acceptable excuse.

Jimmy Bottlehead

MagicSean wrote: »

Following orders has never been an acceptable excuse.

FFS, they're not going out gassing Jews or other groups of people for the craic, they're looking for a quick interview.

Dudess

MagicSean wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

The person who makes the decision and orders it is the one to blame - blaming the person who is sometimes coerced into doing it, is scapegoating, which is also heartless.
A reporter following orders is not necessarily heartless - their boss might be, but you've no idea that they are. They could be threatened with a sacking, and as you said, everyone needs to pay bills.

Following orders has never been an acceptable excuse.

In your opinion maybe. I'm more of the view though that most people will do what they're told if enough fear is put in them - and that it's very easy to be all principled when you're not in their shoes. You might think you'd never crack - I call bull****. Even basic understanding of psychology and human nature would make that clear. A lot of people are mad keen for scapegoating and witch-hunting though.

stovelid

The Herald is a rag but not on the level of, say, some Irish or British tabloids.

There is no evidence to suggest that the journalist wasn't mortified and troubled at being sent to get quotes by the editor or whoever is their boss.

And it is true that many of us are quick to devour this kind of tragedy porn and but also quick to moralize about it.

flutterflye

Dudess wrote: »

The person who makes the decision and orders it is the one to blame - blaming the person who is sometimes coerced into doing it, is scapegoating, which is also heartless.
A reporter following orders is not necessarily heartless - their boss might be, but you've no idea that they are. They could be threatened with a sacking, and as you said, everyone needs to pay bills.

Yeah, you see I'm just not getting your point here at all.
The person making the orders is to blame, but so is the person following them.
The person following orders should not just do something just because they were told to.
That classic psych experiment where people were told to zap a man with increasing voltage even though he is evidently suffering should show you that - that people will follow all sorts of orders from a superior.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't.
I would stand by what I feel is right.

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Happily for you, you're in a position where you can choose.

Those with student loans, bills, repayments, etc. aren't in such a position.

I also love how people assume the journo's just turned up shouting for quotes... I would like to think that even though they've been given a poxy assignment, they would go about it with respect towards the family.

Don't talk to me about money.
I have 2 kids, a mortgage, college fees, and all sorts of bills, with only one smallish wage coming into the house.

I never assumed anything about shouting for quotes - don't put words in my mouth.

Dudess

I am not talking about people doing something simply because they are told to, I am talking about people obeying due to consequences if they don't. If someone coerces someone into doing something, the vast majority of the blame lies with the former. I find the tendency to blame the soft target absolutely disgusting. Like when that little boy died in London because of abuse, social workers were blamed - wtf?!
I think someone assuming that they'd be above being coerced without actually experiencing it is very arrogant, and it does not display much critical thinking. That is just my opinion.

Helix

hondasam wrote: »

Bull****, someone starts a thread here, everyone reads it, same thing as reading the paper,
if the op of any thread is so annoyed about something why highlight it further by posting it on a public forum.

i havent read it

i read what the OP commented on, but i neither clicked on the link nor read the story

i assume most people would be the same for the most part

Helix

abouttobebanned wrote: »

The person that said we demand thIs so paper's provide it - that's nonsense. Irish people know grief as much as any other country...we know or at least can imagine how a parent must feel if they lose a child. We don't need to read a quote cause we know what it would or wouldn't say. We read whatever a paper decides to print - that's if we have chosen to be a buyer of that paper in the first place.

that's not even remotely true. people LOVE reading about things like this. if the irish nation was so collectively against this, and wanted to give people time to grieve they'd boycott papers like this, or completely ignore these kind of stories. they don't do any such thing. they read them, then they tell people about "how terrible it is"

Helix

Bosco boy wrote: »

Decent intelligent folk don't want it and I'd like to think they are in the majority!

you reckon so? how does that explain why these papers sell so many copies each day? editors know exactly what sells papers, and if this kind of story negatively affected sales they wouldnt be included. the fact that there are many, many stories like this in almost every big selling single paper in ireland every single day suggests you're far wide of the mark

SV wrote: »

Who's worse, the person who creates the snuff movies or the person who buys them?

both as bad as each other

MagicSean wrote: »

I disagree. The public want certain details but not these ones. The public would be perfectly satisfied to know that a ten year old girls was hit by a car and killed. They don't want her name, address, daily planner or to know how that her parents are devastated.

they do though, that's the thing. YOU might not want it. I certainly don't want it, but the great unwashed absolutely love this kind of thing

Jimmy Bottlehead

flutterflye wrote: »

Don't talk to me about money.
I have 2 kids, a mortgage, college fees, and all sorts of bills, with only one smallish wage coming into the house.

I'm now talking about money. Deal with it.

So if the person paying that smallish wage keeping you afloat decided to tell you to do something in your job description, that is expected of you, but which you find distasteful - well I'm sure you'd be more than happy to tell them where to shove their job, eh?

Don't make ridiculous demands of others, and chastise them publicly when they can't be adhered to, when you yourself would bow down in exactly the same way.

Or am I wrong?

Would you be prepared to put your family on the dole, letting your kids see you lose your home, your kids knowing you're unemployed, queuing up for back-to-school allowances, potentially going bankrupt from crippling debts etc all in the name of principles?

flutterflye wrote: »

I never assumed anything about shouting for quotes - don't put words in my mouth.

I don't need to, you said the following about the way you seem to think these journalists go about their jobs:

flutterflye wrote: »

Everyone needs to pay bills, but not everyone has to be heartless to do so.

flutterflye wrote: »

There are always parts to your job that you don't like, but I draw the line at hurting others.

flutterflye

Dudess wrote: »

I am not talking about people doing something simply because they are told to, I am talking about people obeying due to consequences if they don't. If someone coerces someone into doing something, the vast majority of the blame lies with the former. I find the tendency to blame the soft target absolutely disgusting. Like when that little boy died in London because of abuse, social workers were blamed - wtf?!
I think someone assuming that they'd be above being coerced without actually experiencing it is very arrogant, and it does not display much critical thinking. That is just my opinion.

Well if you are referring to me - critical thinking is actually probably my strongest quality.
At no point did I insinuate that the paper itself, or the editor in chief etc... were blameless - where are you getting that idea from?
I just didn't refer to them much, as we were discussing the journo, not them.

The social workers most certainly did play a large part with baby P, along with the parents, the nhs, the doctors, and society as a whole.

The fact that others are also to blame should not take away the personal responsibility of the social workers, journos, or any other 'little guy'.

I haven't personally any experience of being a journo, but I've had many personal experiences of being pressured into doing something.

I may well be arrogant in many other ways, but this is not one of them.

flutterflye

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

I'm now talking about money. Deal with it.

So if the person paying that smallish wage keeping you afloat decided to tell you to do something in your job description, that is expected of you, but which you find distasteful - well I'm sure you'd be more than happy to tell them where to shove their job, eh?

Don't make ridiculous demands of others, and chastise them publicly when they can't be adhered to, when you yourself would bow down in exactly the same way.

Or am I wrong?

Would you be prepared to put your family on the dole, letting your kids see you lose your home, your kids knowing you're unemployed, queuing up for back-to-school allowances, potentially going bankrupt from crippling debts etc all in the name of principles?



I don't need to, you said the following about the way you seem to think these journalists go about their jobs:

Your post is just annoying me.
Too much makey uppy noise there for my liking.
You make no sense to me.
At least Dudess is concise and coherent.

Abi

I'd never be able to stand on someones doorstep after they lost a family member and ask anything of them. They need to be left alone to grieve.



It's so sad. Condolences to the little girls family.

Helix

Abi wrote: »

I'd never be able to stand on someones doorstep after they lost a family member and ask anything of them.

chances are it was a phone call, or the journalist said they called but didnt and used this instead

IvyTheTerrible

Abi wrote: »

I'd never be able to stand on someones doorstep after they lost a family member and ask anything of them. They need to be left alone to grieve.



It's so sad. Condolences to the little girls family.

It's a well known fact that journalists trawl the death notices for phrases like "sudden" and "tragic" and will start asking question of family members/friends to find out if there is a juicy angle to the story. Scummy.

Jimmy Bottlehead

flutterflye wrote: »

Your post is just annoying me.
Too much makey uppy noise there for my liking.
You make no sense to me.
At least Dudess is concise and coherent.

My post annoys you?

Well there goes my argument.

Abi

Helix wrote: »

chances are it was a phone call, or the journalist said they called but didnt and used this instead

I'd like to think that this was the case.

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

It's a well known fact that journalists trawl the death notices for phrases like "sudden" and "tragic" and will start asking question of family members/friends to find out if there is a juicy angle to the story. Scummy.

Maybe you have to be 'cut out' for this type of work, and by that I mean devoid of all emotion. I know some are saying it's the journos job, and they're being sent etc., but I know I personally wouldn't able to do it.

Friends and the locals would be able to fill in the journo, there's absolutely no need to be bothering the parents.

Snickers Man

My goodness, there's a lot of po-faced rubbish in here!

It may be a regrettable fact of modern life that the sudden tragic death of a loved one WILL be followed by media interest in the plight of the bereaved but that is sadly one of the things that grown up people will just have to come to terms with.

Sniffilly blaming the Herald, which I never buy, for this sort of behaviour is naive and unfair. All papers, and all media outlets radio, TV increasingly the Web, need information about the deceased and go to get it from the closest source, namely the families.

Case in point: those horrible murders a couple of days ago in Bandon. Two days ago it is reported a body is fished out of the river. Last night a photograph of the deceased, taken when he was still alive, was on all the TV news programs.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE JOURNALISTS GOT IT?????

There is a code of practice regarding sensitivity and plain good manners when approaching people who have suffered a sudden and horrible loss. But it is the loss that is the real tragedy, not the poor hack who knocks on your door because a nation wants to feel your pain.

Honestly: I think some people on here are so naive they don't know where babies come from.

My name is URL

I'm surprised that some people see no issue or have no problem with the idea of a journalist calling to the door of a grieving family less than 24 hours after their daughter so tragically lost her life. The story appearing in the paper is fine, but what purpose does having the parents opinion included serve? Obviously they're going to be devastated, which should be a given, and doesn't need to come straight from their mouths.

To those saying it's acceptable because the public demand this sort of story, to what degree would you be willing to apply that logic? Would it be enough to excuse the phone tapping undertaken by the NOTW, or the lies spouted by The Sun after the Hillsborough disaster? Shur this is the stuff that the dribbling masses want to be fed after all.

MagicSean

Snickers Man wrote: »

But it is the loss that is the real tragedy, not the poor hack who knocks on your door because a nation wants to feel your pain.

That's not why they do it though is it. They might use it as an excuse alright.

Helix

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm surprised that some people see no issue or have no problem with the idea of a journalist calling to the door of a grieving family less than 24 hours after their daughter so tragically lost her life. The story appearing in the paper is fine, but what purpose does having the parents opinion included serve? Obviously they're going to be devastated, which should be a given, and doesn't need to come straight from their mouths.

To those saying it's acceptable because the public demand this sort of story, to what degree would you be willing to apply that logic? Would it be enough to excuse the phone tapping undertaken by the NOTW, or the lies spouted by The Sun after the Hillsborough disaster? Shur this is the stuff that the dribbling masses want to be fed after all.

how many papers did the notw sell on the back of phone tapping? obviously enough for them to keep doing it. its supply and demand, like it or not

obviously most right minded people dont like it, but it's the people who buy these rags, and sit around watching reality tv all day, who dictate what is classed as acceptable in the entertainment and information world. that's just how it is. just because you or i dont agree with it, doesn't disguise the fact that people are only too happy to eat this crap up

MagicSean

Helix wrote: »

how many papers did the notw sell on the back of phone tapping? obviously enough for them to keep doing it. its supply and demand, like it or not

obviously most right minded people dont like it, but it's the people who buy these rags, and sit around watching reality tv all day, who dictate what is classed as acceptable in the entertainment and information world. that's just how it is. just because you or i dont agree with it, doesn't disguise the fact that people are only too happy to eat this crap up

Yes but the News od the World also went under because of the tapping so it's not a great example.

Riesen_Meal

One of my best mates is a journalist for a big rag and has to do god awful jobs like the one the OP posted, one of his ones a couple of years back involved him having to knock on a families door literally 3 hours after their handicapped daughter waded into the sea under grandparents supervision and died, of course he argued with his editor about it but his editor replied with "do you like your job? Then ya gotta do the bad stories when they come up" response....

At the end of the day its a job, and what he went to college to do....

Snickers Man

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm surprised that some people see no issue or have no problem with the idea of a journalist calling to the door of a grieving family less than 24 hours after their daughter so tragically lost her life.

...Would it be enough to excuse the phone tapping undertaken by the NOTW, or the lies spouted by The Sun after the Hillsborough disaster?...

Some people are able to talk to the press shortly after such a horrible event. Others less so. But the competitive nature of the news media, and the public's desire to know as much as possible about what is going on, means that they have to make an attempt to find out as much information as possible as quickly as possible.

A paper might impose a "not for 48 hours" rule on its own journalists but it can be pretty damn sure that its rivals would not follow suit.

And you really can't liken the Sun's baseless and extravagant charges that corpses were robbed by survivors at Hillsborough, or the underhand and illegal accessing of dead people's private phone mailboxes by the News of the World, which led to unwarranted hopes that their daughter was still alive in the case of the Dowler family, with the up front and honest approach of a hack who knocks at the door of a bereaved family and says something like:

"Hello. I'm from the Daily Whatever. I realise you've had a tragic loss for which I am sincerely sympathetic. But I wonder is it possible that anybody here, preferably but not necessarily an immediate family member, might be able to tell me something about the deceased. How old was he? What were his pastimes? Did he play football, or play in a band? Have you any idea what might have been the motive for his death (if violent) or who might have been responsible? Do you have a picture of him that you would like the greater public to see?"

That is merely reputable journalism, however unpleasant it might be to intrude on a bereaved family's grief.

It's not the basic legitimate gathering of simple facts that you should be angry about. It's the underhand way some of them go about getting them. But then you can head much of that off by simply arranging for them to have the basic information. That's where "friends of the family" come in very useful.

Choose carefully what you get angry about.

Bosco boy

Dress it up whatever way you want but it's the lowest of the low and a decent person would never entertain doing it. If your that stuck for money PM me and I'll give you anything I can spare if you will stay away from the next family it happens to. Changing occupation my be another alternative!

Jimmy Bottlehead

Bosco boy wrote: »

Dress it up whatever way you want but it's the lowest of the low and a decent person would never entertain doing it. If your that stuck for money PM me and I'll give you anything I can spare if you will stay away from the next family it happens to. Changing occupation my be another alternative!

An inspired post :P

Dudess

flutterflye wrote: »

At no point did I insinuate that the paper itself, or the editor in chief etc... were blameless - where are you getting that idea from?

I didn't say you did, but the blame lies pretty much entirely with them if they instruct the journalist to do it and threaten the journalist with a sacking if they don't, yet the journalist is the one getting the brunt of it here - no evidence whatsoever that the journalist is a heartless person.

The social workers most certainly did play a large part with baby P, along with the parents, the nhs, the doctors, and society as a whole.

Collective responsibility is a way of shifting blame to easier targets. Those 100 per cent to blame for that child's death are the monsters who abused him. The head of child services seemed to be a rather cold bureaucrat - serious questions should be asked about her conduct, ditto doctors who could not spot that the child was badly injured (although I doubt a doctor would be that incompetent - his injuries must have been well hidden by the bastards) but those low down on the food chain - you cannot just assume without the full facts that they were negligent. There are acres of bureaucracy they have to deal with, as well as fear being put into them by the child's "guardians".
If I heard screams from a child next door, I would deem it my responsibility to investigate and report this, but after that, I don't know how much obstacles I could be facing unfortunately - I'd keep trying though.

I haven't personally any experience of being a journo, but I've had many personal experiences of being pressured into doing something.

I may well be arrogant in many other ways, but this is not one of them.

You quite simply don't know, hence my assessment of your take as arrogant.

flutterflye wrote: »

Your post is just annoying me.
Too much makey uppy noise there for my liking.
You make no sense to me.
At least Dudess is concise and coherent.

Thank you Flutterflye, but Jimmy made some fair points - why not address them instead of dismissing them?

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

It's a well known fact that journalists trawl the death notices for phrases like "sudden" and "tragic" and will start asking question of family members/friends to find out if there is a juicy angle to the story. Scummy.

That is certainly scummy, but I can categorically state not all journalists carry on like that.

Abi wrote: »

Maybe you have to be 'cut out' for this type of work, and by that I mean devoid of all emotion. I know some are saying it's the journos job, and they're being sent etc., but I know I personally wouldn't able to do it.

Friends and the locals would be able to fill in the journo, there's absolutely no need to be bothering the parents.

There are two types of people in this job Abz, broadly speaking: those who have ethics but are backed into a corner, and those who don't have ethics. Of course we all think there's no way we would do it - and I was lucky enough to be in a position to give that career path the flick, but not everyone is. It's a hideous thing to have to do, but the circumstances that lead to it should be looked at.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Two days ago it is reported a body is fished out of the river. Last night a photograph of the deceased, taken when he was still alive, was on all the TV news programs.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE JOURNALISTS GOT IT?????

Perhaps they got it from the guards though, to be fair.

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm surprised that some people see no issue or have no problem with the idea of a journalist calling to the door of a grieving family less than 24 hours after their daughter so tragically lost her life.

MNIU, who said or indicated that they see no issue?
Not defending it at all, but the loved ones of someone who has been tragically killed appearing on TV, speaking on radio/in a newspaper - that is not unusual. I just find it bizarre that the OP has highlighted this sole incident as so shocking. And sometimes it appears relatives ARE able for speaking to the media, to be fair.

Fieldog wrote: »

One of my best mates is a journalist for a big rag and has to do god awful jobs like the one the OP posted, one of his ones a couple of years back involved him having to knock on a families door literally 3 hours after their handicapped daughter waded into the sea under grandparents supervision and died, of course he argued with his editor about it but his editor replied with "do you like your job? Then ya gotta do the bad stories when they come up" response

This is the reality that some people just are not prepared to admit to.

Bosco boy wrote: »

Dress it up whatever way you want but it's the lowest of the low and a decent person would never entertain doing it.

You don't know what you're talking about so maybe ride away on your high horse. And it's not "dressing up" - it's pointing out a reality. What about a decent person who does not want to do it but has no choice in the matter? Before you say they have a choice, maybe they need the job? Presume you have a job - very easy to make snap judgements from a comfortable position eh?

Bosco boy

Dudess wrote: »

flutterflye wrote: »

At no point did I insinuate that the paper itself, or the editor in chief etc... were blameless - where are you getting that idea from?

I didn't say you did, but the blame lies pretty much entirely with them if they instruct the journalist to do it and threaten the journalist with a sacking if they don't, yet the journalist is the one getting the brunt of it here - no evidence whatsoever that the journalist is a heartless person.

The social workers most certainly did play a large part with baby P, along with the parents, the nhs, the doctors, and society as a whole.

Collective responsibility is a way of shifting blame to easier targets. Those 100 per cent to blame for that child's death are the monsters who abused him. The head of child services seemed to be a rather cold bureaucrat - serious questions should be asked about her conduct, ditto doctors who could not spot that the child was badly injured (although I doubt a doctor would be that incompetent - his injuries must have been well hidden by the bastards) but those low down on the food chain - you cannot just assume without the full facts that they were negligent. There are acres of bureaucracy they have to deal with, as well as fear being put into them by the child's "guardians".
If I heard screams from a child next door, I would deem it my responsibility to investigate and report this, but after that, I don't know how much obstacles I could be facing unfortunately - I'd keep trying though.

I haven't personally any experience of being a journo, but I've had many personal experiences of being pressured into doing something.

I may well be arrogant in many other ways, but this is not one of them.

You quite simply don't know, hence my assessment of your take as arrogant.

flutterflye wrote: »

Your post is just annoying me.
Too much makey uppy noise there for my liking.
You make no sense to me.
At least Dudess is concise and coherent.

Thank you Flutterflye, but Jimmy made some fair points - why not address them instead of dismissing them?

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

It's a well known fact that journalists trawl the death notices for phrases like "sudden" and "tragic" and will start asking question of family members/friends to find out if there is a juicy angle to the story. Scummy.

That is certainly scummy, but I can categorically state not all journalists carry on like that.

Abi wrote: »

Maybe you have to be 'cut out' for this type of work, and by that I mean devoid of all emotion. I know some are saying it's the journos job, and they're being sent etc., but I know I personally wouldn't able to do it.

Friends and the locals would be able to fill in the journo, there's absolutely no need to be bothering the parents.

There are two types of people in this job Abz, broadly speaking: those who have ethics but are backed into a corner, and those who don't have ethics. Of course we all think there's no way we would do it - and I was lucky enough to be in a position to give that career path the flick, but not everyone is. It's a hideous thing to have to do, but the circumstances that lead to it should be looked at.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Two days ago it is reported a body is fished out of the river. Last night a photograph of the deceased, taken when he was still alive, was on all the TV news programs.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE JOURNALISTS GOT IT?????

Perhaps they got it from the guards though, to be fair.

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm surprised that some people see no issue or have no problem with the idea of a journalist calling to the door of a grieving family less than 24 hours after their daughter so tragically lost her life.

MNIU, who said or indicated that they see no issue?
Not defending it at all, but the loved ones of someone who has been tragically killed appearing on TV, speaking on radio/in a newspaper - that is not unusual. I just find it bizarre that the OP has highlighted this sole incident as so shocking. And sometimes it appears relatives ARE able for speaking to the media, to be fair.

Fieldog wrote: »

One of my best mates is a journalist for a big rag and has to do god awful jobs like the one the OP posted, one of his ones a couple of years back involved him having to knock on a families door literally 3 hours after their handicapped daughter waded into the sea under grandparents supervision and died, of course he argued with his editor about it but his editor replied with "do you like your job? Then ya gotta do the bad stories when they come up" response

This is the reality that some people just are not prepared to admit to.

Bosco boy wrote: »

Dress it up whatever way you want but it's the lowest of the low and a decent person would never entertain doing it.

You don't know what you're talking about so maybe ride away on your high horse. And it's not "dressing up" - it's pointing out a reality. What about a decent person who does not want to do it but has no choice in the matter? Before you say they have a choice, maybe they need the job? Presume you have a job - very easy to make snap judgements from a comfortable position eh?

I don't know what I'm talking about!!! I've had to call to people and break news of their loved ones tragic death, if you ever had to do that you'd ****ing know what you are taking about. To think that 3 hours later a person motivated by money will enter their broken world is disgusting, I know people who had to move house at the most difficult time of their lives, if you want to be a journalist by all means be one but have a certain standard of decency!

Dudess

Bosco boy wrote: »

I don't know what I'm talking about!!!

You don't, because you're not a journalist. Until you stop ignoring the point that some journalists are backed into a corner and have no say in the matter - even if they try to reason with their editor - otherwise they'll get fired, you're just venting without thinking.
I was thinking of becoming a journalist and started working/training towards it, but then I decided not to, because of things like this - not everyone gets such insight early on though.
You are right that there are unethical journalists, but you'd do well not to just pretend, for the sake of your argument and being able to be smug about things, that all journalists are like that. I'm sure it must be fun and self satisfying to be smug and pontificating, but looking at the bigger picture seems the fairer thing to do.

Somebody working for a local paper who is instructed to cover a tragedy is not the same as a vulture working for a red top.

Bosco boy

Dudess wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

I don't know what I'm talking about!!!

You don't, because you're not a journalist. Until you stop ignoring the point that some journalists are backed into a corner and have no say in the matter - even if they try to reason with their editor - otherwise they'll get fired, you're just venting without thinking.
I was thinking of becoming a journalist and started working/training towards it, but then I decided not to, because of things like this - not everyone gets such insight early on though.
You are right that there are unethical journalists, but you'd do well not to just pretend, for the sake of your argument and being able to be smug about things, that all journalists are like that. I'm sure it must be fun and self satisfying to be smug and pontificating, but looking at the bigger picture seems the fairer thing to do.

Somebody working for a local paper who is instructed to cover a tragedy is not the same as a vulture working for a red top.

Horse****e!

Dudess

Any reason why?

For a bona fide heartless journalist see from 4:00 onwards on the video in my sig.

AudreyHepburn

RIP Louise.

What that journalist did was heartless but it is his job at the end of the day. I'm not excusing it but lets not pretend he did it with malicious intent either.

flutterflye

Dudess wrote: »

I didn't say you did, but the blame lies pretty much entirely with them if they instruct the journalist to do it and threaten the journalist with a sacking if they don't, yet the journalist is the one getting the brunt of it here - no evidence whatsoever that the journalist is a heartless person.

Collective responsibility is a way of shifting blame to easier targets. Those 100 per cent to blame for that child's death are the monsters who abused him. The head of child services seemed to be a rather cold bureaucrat - serious questions should be asked about her conduct, ditto doctors who could not spot that the child was badly injured (although I doubt a doctor would be that incompetent - his injuries must have been well hidden by the bastards) but those low down on the food chain - you cannot just assume without the full facts that they were negligent. There are acres of bureaucracy they have to deal with, as well as fear being put into them by the child's "guardians".
If I heard screams from a child next door, I would deem it my responsibility to investigate and report this, but after that, I don't know how much obstacles I could be facing unfortunately - I'd keep trying though.

You quite simply don't know, hence my assessment of your take as arrogant.

Thank you Flutterflye, but Jimmy made some fair points - why not address them instead of dismissing them?

All fair points.
I still stand by everything I said, but I do also see your points.
Especially about baby P.

I didn't respond to Jimmy because to me, it was too rant like and argumentative, instead of clear points to be discussed.

Frank Black

Guess some people place more value on their jobs than their morals.



Cue outraged responses, sneering at how wonderful it most be to be able to afford morals.

My name is URL

It's their job.. and blah blah blah. Yeah, it is their job.. they voluntarily agreed to work for one of the most low-brow publications in the country for their own personal gain. I can't actually believe that people are saying that journalists are expected to do this kind of thing and have no say in the matter. Nothing is expected of a journalist but to provide the bones of a story. How they go about doing so is up to the parties involved, and what protocols and permissions are put in place by the publishers.

The Heralds scummy tactics mirror the quality of the content.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

RIP Louise.

What that journalist did was heartless but it is his job at the end of the day. I'm not excusing it but lets not pretend he did it with malicious intent either.

It depends on the parent. Some parents can give these interviews, others can't.