Heartless journalists

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.

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.