Heartless journalists

MagicSean

Even if you accept that they had no choice but to disturb a grieving father on the worst day of his life did they really have to include their attempt in the article?

Frank Black

K-9 wrote: »

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

Best to try them all to find out which type of grieving parent you're dealing with?

Da Shins Kelly

biko wrote: »

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.

In fairness, it's one thing reporting on an accident or murder and doorstepping the houses of grieving families trying to pry quotes out of them. It's possible to report the facts of an incident without exploiting people.

K-9

black francis wrote: »

Best to try them all to find out which type of grieving parent you're dealing with?

Well calling to the door wouldn't be acceptable to me. A clever and subtle joutnalist would get talking to neighbours, friends and relations and see.

As I sad earlier, Denis Murray did a couple of those type of interviews in the North, powerful TV and emotional appeals.

Dudess

black francis wrote: »

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.

Well just because you can't admit to a reality doesn't mean it's an outraged response if someone disagrees with you.
Extremely easy to say you'd just walk out of your job and risk being unemployed long-term when there are bills and loans to be paid, when you're not in that position, but... there ya go.
Yep, there are people who would put their job before their morals when backed into a corner - and I don't believe you're an exception. Most of us like to assume that we're better people than those we take issue with without knowing the facts - oblivious to the reality of human nature.

Dudess

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

That's judging without knowing anything about the person - and jobs are thin on the ground. The reporter couldn't have been expected to predict this assignment.

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.

Well it's true. Take it from those of us who have worked in the industry. The organisation of which the Herald is a part, is particularly tough on its staff.

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.

You're just assuming that.

I'm seeing longing for a smear campaign at this stage.

For all we know, it could be some 22-year-old kid fresh out of college, getting a few scraps of journalistic work and pretty much advised they won't be called again if they don't do the assignment. That happens - believe me.
Being full of contempt for such a person is also heartless tbh.

Then again, it could have been a preying vulture who deserves any abuse they get, but the thing is... we don't know.

Frank Black

Dudess wrote: »

Well just because you can't admit to a reality doesn't mean it's an outraged response if someone disagrees with you.
Extremely easy to say you'd just walk out of your job and risk being unemployed long-term when there are bills and loans to be paid, when you're not in that position, but... there ya go.
Yep, there are people who would put their job before their morals when backed into a corner - and I don't believe you're an exception. Most of us like to assume that we're better people than those we take issue with without knowing the facts - oblivious to the reality of human nature.

You seem very keen to see it from the journalists point of view.

I'm guessing you don't have kids?

flutterflye

black francis wrote: »

You seem very keen to see it from the journalists point of view.

I'm guessing you don't have kids?

That's a good point.
And very well could be the reason that I naturally empathise with the grieving family - because loosing one of my kids is literally the most horrible scenario that I could ever imagine happening.
Plus I know someone who lost their child recently and I honestly don't know how someone would cope with that, let alone to be questioned by the media at such a vulnerable time.

Of course you don't have to have kids to empathise with the family, but it's just automatic and more raw if you do.

mdoyler2

The quality and standards of journalists in Ireland are deplorable. They print what sells, not the truth. Then hide beyond the freedom of speech argument.

You need no qualification or training to be a journalist, once your standards or morals are low enough you qualify.

Frank Black

flutterflye wrote: »

That's a good point.
And very well could be the reason that I naturally empathise with the grieving family - because loosing one of my kids is literally the most horrible scenario that I could ever imagine happening.
Plus I know someone who lost their child recently and I honestly don't know how someone would cope with that, let alone to be questioned by the media at such a vulnerable time.

Of course you don't have to have kids to empathise with the family, but it's just automatic and more raw if you do.

Indeed, and just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that empathy is only the preserve of parents either - or that you're not entitled to voice an opinion on this matter unless you have children.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to (or want to) imagine what the parents are going through - and having a couple of reporters turn up on your doorstep after something like this, looking for a few quotes is beyond defending imo.

Dudess

black francis wrote: »

You seem very keen to see it from the journalists point of view.

Keen? Nope, just explaining reality. You seem very keen not to accept it - easier to scapegoat I guess.

I'm guessing you don't have kids?

:rolleyes:
Speaking of heartless, I wonder do people who ask that question in a snide, passive-aggressive manner ever consider that the person might be having difficulties in that department?

mdoyler2 wrote: »

The quality and standards of journalists in Ireland are deplorable. They print what sells, not the truth. Then hide beyond the freedom of speech argument.

You need no qualification or training to be a journalist, once your standards or morals are low enough you qualify.

All depends on the publication - too much misinformed bullsh1t here.

black francis wrote: »

Indeed, and just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that empathy is only the preserve of parents either - or that you're not entitled to voice an opinion on this matter unless you have children.

Well then what was the smug "I'm guessing you don't have kids?" about?

having a couple of reporters turn up on your doorstep after something like this, looking for a few quotes is beyond defending imo.

Who's defending it? You'd do well to stop looking for badness where there isn't any.
A journalist who does it of their own volition - ****.
But not all journalists do it of their own volition - is that so difficult to understand? And anyone who is so confident that they wouldn't do it if threatened with a sacking/no more freelance income is just being laughably arrogant and po-faced. Attack the editor who decides it is to be done, for sure - I guess that's too much hassle though, much easier to give the soft target grief.

Fishooks12

As a journalist myself I can assure you that the journalist could have been following the orders of the editor or just following up on the story himself but either way this kind of practice is fairly common for tabloids

Either way it's pretty bad taste but of course the OP has to go and blacken the name of every journalist with an inflammatory thread title

Dudess

It's a horrible practice - and the main reason I don't work in that area any more. But the wrong people being blamed here of course.

The point that so, so many people devour such tragic stories is such a good one - and plenty of the naysayers on this thread are no exception.

Who is expected to provide the news seeing as journalists are the spawn of satan? It's true that many journalists don't have ethics, but many media companies don't either, and there is often a fine line between advertising and editorial - sometimes you have to compromise for the company and it's not nice. I'm sure anyone decent would just walk - if they had the choice though.

Fishooks12

Dudess wrote: »

It's a horrible practice - and the main reason I don't work in that area any more. But the wrong people being blamed here of course.

It's not even that common for a tabloid to doorstep a family after bereavement. Just a bit of editorial misjudgement

Doorstepping is something I hope I never have to do in my career. Really intrusive

Frank Black

Dudess wrote: »

Keen? Nope, just explaining reality. You seem very keen not to accept it - easier to scapegoat I guess.

:rolleyes:
Speaking of heartless, I wonder do people who ask that question in a snide, passive-aggressive manner ever consider that the person might be having difficulties in that department?

All depends on the publication - too much misinformed bullsh1t here.

Well then what was the smug "I'm guessing you don't have kids?" about?

Who's defending it? You'd do well to stop looking for badness where there isn't any.
A journalist who does it of their own volition - ****.
But not all journalists do it of their own volition - is that so difficult to understand? And anyone who is so confident that they wouldn't do it if threatened with a sacking/no more freelance income is just being laughably arrogant and po-faced. Attack the editor who decides it is to be done, for sure - I guess that's too much hassle though, much easier to give the soft target grief.

:rolleyes:

Dudess

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Doorstepping is something I hope I never have to do in my career.

Oh well now I'd assume, Fishooks12, that you'd just tell your editor where to go and storm out of the office in a blaze of self righteous glory - worry about bills and loan repayments and day-to-day living and a job reference and the prospect of being long-term unemployed after.

/folds arms

Fishooks12

Dudess wrote: »

Oh well now I'd assume, Fishooks12, that you'd just tell your editor where to go and storm out of the office in a blaze of self righteous glory - worry about bills and loan repayments and day-to-day living and a job reference and the prospect of being long-term unemployed after.

/folds arms

Thankfully it's not done where I ply my trade but if I had a choice between being insensitive and intrusive and losing my job I know what I'd do

If I was asked to doorstep the family who just lost a young girl I'd certainly raise my concerns with the editor or if it came to it, just pretend the person involved wasn't available for comment

Jimmy Bottlehead

flutterflye wrote: »

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

Rubbish. My post is clear, the points concise (I feel they are anyways) and I feel the reason you're backing away from answering it is because I dissected your own arguments and claims by asking hard questions and using your own posts against you.

It's easy to answer a post where you might be right - it's not easy answering a post when you're doubting yourself.

Now THAT is an argumentative post.

Me again!

Fishooks12 wrote: »

As a journalist myself I can assure you that the journalist could have been following the orders of the editor or just following up on the story himself but either way this kind of practice is fairly common for tabloids

Either way it's pretty bad taste but of course the OP has to go and blacken the name of every journalist with an inflammatory thread title

How ironic! A journalist complaining about the thread title being misleading.

Dudess

Me again! wrote: »

Fishooks12 wrote: »

As a journalist myself I can assure you that the journalist could have been following the orders of the editor or just following up on the story himself but either way this kind of practice is fairly common for tabloids

Either way it's pretty bad taste but of course the OP has to go and blacken the name of every journalist with an inflammatory thread title

How ironic! A journalist complaining about the thread title being misleading.

1. Reporters don't write headlines
2. So you can back up your assertion that all journalists mislead?

This thread is choc a block with people not knowing what they're talking about. One thing to voice an opinion based on what you know, but making baseless assumptions renders a view null and void.

Fishooks12

Me again! wrote: »

How ironic! A journalist complaining about the thread title being misleading.

Journalists don't write headlines by the way, sub editors and editors do.

Educate yourself

MagicSean

Fishooks12 wrote: »

As a journalist myself I can assure you that the journalist could have been following the orders of the editor or just following up on the story himself but either way this kind of practice is fairly common for tabloids

Either way it's pretty bad taste but of course the OP has to go and blacken the name of every journalist with an inflammatory thread title

I apologise. The "s" at the end of the title was uncalled for. I'm sure it's the same journalist each time.

Fishooks12

MagicSean wrote: »

I apologise. The "s" at the end of the title was uncalled for. I'm sure it's the same journalist each time.

It's a tiny majority of tabloid journalists that employ that practice

But you seem to think it's ok to blacken the name of everyone seeking an honest living under the guise of a journalist

Congrats sir, maybe you should apply for an editorial position in The Sun seeing as you're adept in spinning **** to suit your own agenda

Bosco boy

Fishooks12 wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

I apologise. The "s" at the end of the title was uncalled for. I'm sure it's the same journalist each time.

It's a tiny majority of tabloid journalists that employ that practice

But you seem to think it's ok to blacken the name of everyone seeking an honest living under the guise of a journalist

Congrats sir, maybe you should apply for an editorial position in The Sun seeing as you're adept in spinning **** to suit your own agenda

There are good journalists out there but they would never support or condone these methods. if you have to resort to this to get a story then it's time to seek a job elsewhere as some have clearly done. By trying to justify this disgraceful behaviour you are doing your journalist collegues a disservice.

Fishooks12

Bosco boy wrote: »

There are good journalists out there but they would never support or condone these methods. if you have to resort to this to get a story then it's time to seek a job elsewhere as some have clearly done. By trying to justify this disgraceful behaviour you are doing your journalist collegues a disservice.

When did I try to justify any of it? If you read back through the last page you'll see that I referred to that kind of doorstepping as "intrusive" and "in very bad taste"

I also said that given the choice I would more than likely just pretend that the family wasn't available for comment rather than disturb a recently bereaved family

Luckily I don't work for a tabloid and don't see myself ever doing so but I certainly wasn't condoning the article. I was calling the OP out on his inflammatory thread title that makes us all look bad

Chips Lovell

I'm friendly with one photographer who quit a decent gig at a paper because he just couldn't stomach being sent off to gatecrash funerals any more.

Some reporters don't have a problem with this style of journalism. Others are doing it because beggars can't be choosers. Personally I'd only go there if it were a choice between that or the dole.

I am amused at public outrage about heartless journalists though. If you look at the combined sales of the tabloids, you'll see that a good section the news reading population has an appetite for this kind of journalism. No one ever gets angry about people actually buying these papers though.

Bosco boy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm friendly with one photographer who quit a decent gig at a paper because he just couldn't stomach being sent off to gatecrash funerals any more.

Some reporters don't have a problem with this style of journalism. Others are doing it because beggars can't be choosers. Personally I'd only go there if it were a choice between that or the dole.

I am amused at public outrage about heartless journalists though. If you look at the combined sales of the tabloids, you'll see that a good section the news reading population has an appetite for this kind of journalism. No one ever gets angry about people actually buying these papers though.

In fairness the people who read these papers are not very bright in any event. It's mainly the pictures they are looking at!

Dudess

I notice people on this thread so quick to make assumptions about the journalist are just ignoring the points put to them/not even attempting to address them... because they can't. If you can't be swayed because you have good reason to, fair enough, but people on this thread are just sticking to their guns for the sake of it - without reason and with plenty of reason given demonstrating that they could be wrong. And even making up bullsh1t, like saying there are people defending and condoning this practice.

Bosco boy wrote: »

There are good journalists out there but they would never support or condone these methods.

You know all of them do you? And they don't practise such a method because, once again, they have the choice.

if you have to resort to this to get a story

Or if your editor resorts to it, which is a different matter. I never got a response to my query as to why what I wrote earlier was "horse-sh1t" by the way.

then it's time to seek a job elsewhere

How do you know people who are instructed to do stuff like this aren't looking for another job? I hear the word on the street is that there are very few jobs out there - particularly in the media.

as some have clearly done.

So you're saying that it's clear some have had to do work like doorstepping after a terrible tragedy and they left the job?
How is it clear?

By trying to justify this disgraceful behaviour you are doing your journalist collegues a disservice.

Nobody justified it whatsoever. Maybe you should stop lying.

Bosco boy wrote: »

In fairness the people who read these papers are not very bright in any event. It's mainly the pictures they are looking at!

Plenty of people who are bright read tabloids. Wouldn't be surprised if you read about a tragedy in a tabloid either.

MagicSean

Fishooks12 wrote: »

It's a tiny majority of tabloid journalists that employ that practice

But you seem to think it's ok to blacken the name of everyone seeking an honest living under the guise of a journalist

Congrats sir, maybe you should apply for an editorial position in The Sun seeing as you're adept in spinning **** to suit your own agenda

Where exactly did I imply that?

Dudess

Yeah I don't think MagicSean is as bad as some of the folk on this thread who are simply making stuff up - haha, good point that they'd be great tabloid journos ironically enough.

Chuck Stone

Fishooks12 wrote: »

But you seem to think it's ok to blacken the name of everyone seeking an honest living under the guise of a journalist

That's racist. Not all black people are avaricious journalists.

Shame on you.

Fishooks12

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's racist.

I hope you're joking

Chuck Stone

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I hope you're joking

XD

flutterflye

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Rubbish. My post is clear, the points concise (I feel they are anyways) and I feel the reason you're backing away from answering it is because I dissected your own arguments and claims by asking hard questions and using your own posts against you.

It's easy to answer a post where you might be right - it's not easy answering a post when you're doubting yourself.

Now THAT is an argumentative post.

I don't find this post argumentative at all.
This post is quite clear and concise actually.

Bosco boy

Dudess wrote: »

It's a horrible practice - and the main reason I don't work in that area any more. But the wrong people being blamed here of course.

The point that so, so many people devour such tragic stories is such a good one - and plenty of the naysayers on this thread are no exception.

Who is expected to provide the news seeing as journalists are the spawn of satan? It's true that many journalists don't have ethics, but many media companies don't either, and there is often a fine line between advertising and editorial - sometimes you have to compromise for the company and it's not nice. I'm sure anyone decent would just walk - if they had the choice though.

Your post was excellent as far as "it's a horrible practice" then it went downhill!

mdoyler2

Dudess wrote: »

All depends on the publication - too much misinformed bullsh1t here.

I’m not misinformed; I don’t believe any of the Irish newspapers are reputable. Just look at the ownership structure of the industry.

SB Post is about the best but it is very slim pickings.

There is handful of decent journalists out there, but I could count them on one hand (not including the thumb).

Jimmy Bottlehead

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't find this post argumentative at all.
This post is quite clear and concise actually.

Slow down, at this rate you'll start agreeing with my points.

Tusky

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Do you know how difficult it is to get jobs in the media in Ireland in the current climate? Very very hard. We've had newspapers closing down and readerships at an all time low. Look at the amount of staff the Irish Times have let go over the past couple of years. Many journalists working for tabloids would probably prefer to be working elsewhere. Even if you do get work - you are unlikely to get a contract or anything stable. And if you are lucky enough to get a contract it wont be for longer than a year.

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.

I can tell you that you are totally wrong. Journalists are regularly asked to do very specific things. "Knock on X's door and get a quote from Y". How they go about doing things in many cases will be up to their news editor and not up to themselves. Very few journalists would knock on the door of a grieving family if they weren't specifically told to.

As a journalist on the lower rungs of the ladder - I've been asked to do things that go against my morals and I've unfortunately had to do them. Hopefully one day I will be in a position where I can pick and choose what I write about and how I go about it, but at the moment I'm more concerned with paying my rent and bills.

edit: I should say that if I was asked to knock on the door of a grieving family so soon after the accident I would just lie and say that they didnt want to speak to the media.

Me again!

Tusky wrote: »

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Do you know how difficult it is to get jobs in the media in Ireland in the current climate? Very very hard. We've had newspapers closing down and readerships at an all time low. Look at the amount of staff the Irish Times have let go over the past couple of years. Many journalists working for tabloids would probably prefer to be working elsewhere. Even if you do get work - you are unlikely to get a contract or anything stable. And if you are lucky enough to get a contract it wont be for longer than a year.

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.

I can tell you that you are totally wrong. Journalists are regularly asked to do very specific things. Knock on X's door and get a quote from Y. How they go about doing things in many cases will be up to their news editor and not up to themselves. Very few journalists would knock on the door of a grieving family if they weren't specifically told to.

As a journalist on the lower rungs of the ladder - I've been asked to do things that go against my morals and I've unfortunately had to do them. Hopefully one day I will be in a position where I can pick and choose what I write about and how I go about it, but at the moment I'm more concerned with paying my rent and bills.

Your honest anyway! But low standards are never acceptable in any senario. I'd beg on the streets before I'd call to a grieving family to get a story! I mean that!

Frank Black

Tusky wrote: »

As a journalist on the lower rungs of the ladder - I've been asked to do things that go against my morals and I've unfortunately had chosen to do them. Hopefully one day I will be in a position where I can pick and choose what I write about and how I go about it, but at the moment I'm more concerned with paying my rent and bills.

edit: I should say that if I was asked to knock on the door of a grieving family so soon after the accident I would just lie and say that they didnt want to speak to the media.

FYP

Tusky

black francis wrote: »

FYP

Well the alternative is to lose my job and go on the dole. I wont be able to get a job elsewhere at the moment, I know that.

Bosco boy

Tusky wrote: »

black francis wrote: »

FYP

Well the alternative is to lose my job and go on the dole. I wont be able to get a job elsewhere at the moment, I know that.

In a way it's exploitation or workers but the individual reporter has to know its a step too far and those who do it are selfish if it's a case of unethical approch v keeping job!

Johro

MagicSean wrote: »

What kind of heartless bastard tries to interview a grieving father within 24 hours of him losing his young daughter? I'm disgusted.

TV News people do it too, though they tend to interview friends and neighbours, 'community in shock', that kind of thing. If they can get a close-up of real tears it's TV gold. Seen it too many times, newspeople asking folk who are obviously struggling and close to tears stupid questions about how they feel with the camera zooming in them, it's sick and dishonest.

Frank Black

Tusky wrote: »

Well the alternative is to lose my job and go on the dole. I wont be able to get a job elsewhere at the moment, I know that.

If they were my only choices, I'd choose to work in a different industry.

Dudess

Some amount of sanctimonious sh1te here by people who haven't a clue how they'd deal with this scenario. I love the "I'd just change jobs/industries" stuff - as if that's so simple, especially these days. Is it really so horrendous to want to hold onto your job? It's kinda an important thing to most people. You'd know the self righteous ones here were in a comfortable position - very easy not to bother considering the bigger picture from there.

Dudess

Bosco boy wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

It's a horrible practice - and the main reason I don't work in that area any more. But the wrong people being blamed here of course.

The point that so, so many people devour such tragic stories is such a good one - and plenty of the naysayers on this thread are no exception.

Who is expected to provide the news seeing as journalists are the spawn of satan? It's true that many journalists don't have ethics, but many media companies don't either, and there is often a fine line between advertising and editorial - sometimes you have to compromise for the company and it's not nice. I'm sure anyone decent would just walk - if they had the choice though.

Your post was excellent as far as "it's a horrible practice" then it went downhill!

There was nothing downhill about it - it's just that you have nothing to argue back with.
Saying a post is poor simply because you disagree with it (and don't even have good grounds for that) is silly.

hondasam

black francis wrote: »

If they were my only choices, I'd choose to work in a different industry.

That's a silly statement to make. You cannot stop doing the job you like because of one difference of opinion.
News gets reported, I don't see what the big issue is here at all.

Bosco boy

Dudess wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

It's a horrible practice - and the main reason I don't work in that area any more. But the wrong people being blamed here of course.

The point that so, so many people devour such tragic stories is such a good one - and plenty of the naysayers on this thread are no exception.

Who is expected to provide the news seeing as journalists are the spawn of satan? It's true that many journalists don't have ethics, but many media companies don't either, and there is often a fine line between advertising and editorial - sometimes you have to compromise for the company and it's not nice. I'm sure anyone decent would just walk - if they had the choice though.

Your post was excellent as far as "it's a horrible practice" then it went downhill!

There was nothing downhill about it - it's just that you have nothing to argue back with.
Saying a post is poor simply because you disagree with it (and don't even have good grounds for that) is silly.

I've made my arguement and it's clear

Frank Black

Dudess wrote: »

Some amount of sanctimonious sh1te here by people who haven't a clue how they'd deal with this scenario. I love the "I'd just change jobs/industries" stuff - as if that's so simple, especially these days. Is it really so horrendous to want to hold onto your job? It's kinda an important thing to most people. You'd know the self righteous ones here were in a comfortable position - very easy not to bother considering the bigger picture from there.

First thing you said on this thread that I agree with actually:rolleyes:

Dudess wrote: »

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

Me again!

The hacking inquiry in the UK may hopefully result in some guidelines and legislation being brought forward which could be replicated here to raise such poor standards. Some of the evidence has been shocking and the Mccanns And Dowler evidence in particular! I don't believe journalists here were not also engaged with this practice. But sure they can always say they were under pressure from their editor.