Bring It On

I was all set to blog on something else today when I got a voicemail this morning from what I'll kindly refer to as an "irate reader" (IR).

IR expressed "concerns" in his message with a story we recently ran on a family whose son was shot. The reporter had gone to the scene and did what journalists do: got the story. Obviously, part of this process involved asking the family if they had anything to say. They didn't, so we used the usual "declined to comment" clause in the article. Later, the reporter was standing on the street and heard crying and "wailing" coming from the house. He put this detail in his story.

I decided to return this message before the 11 a.m. daily conference call, just in case things got heated. That way I could use my meeting as a way to get off the phone. Hey, I'm working from experience here. You always need an out when it comes to gabbing with the rejected gene pool of people who call me at work.

So IR had a log up his butt about the "morality of shoving a microphone in a grieving family's face, having them sob something unintelligable into the microphone, then reporting it as sensationalism." (I opted not to point out that print journalists don't use microphones, but whatever.) He took issue with what he perceived as a lack of newsworthiness in talking to a grieving family and reporting "wailing coming from inside the house."

Great, so now I had to put IR through quick-and-dirty journalism school. I told him that it's a journalist's job to try to talk to everyone involved in a story. It's standard practice to ask a grieving family if they have anything to say. We're pretty much obligated to ask...or try, anyway. Believe me, no one is more aware of how frowned-upon this is than us...I used to be a cops and courts reporter and my least favorite thing was ambulance chasing (bothering mourning families). Nevertheless, it's part of our job to try to talk to them.

IR argued that we should wait until the family contacts us with something to say. I countered that as journalists, if we don't try to talk to them right then, we may never have another chance. It's not like 90 percent of people are going to willingly call the newspaper "when they're ready" and talk to us. You have to seize the opportunity. It sucks, but that's the way of it. All journalists do it. IR argued that no, some don't. To which I say: Well then, those are journalists who are afraid of confrontation.

Feeling that he was losing this point, he moved on to the "wailing coming from the house." What newsworthiness is there in this? he asked. Why can't we respect a family's privacy?

Sigh. OK, first of all, the newsworthiness in it is that it sets the scene. It tells the reader what's going on there. Why read the newspaper if you don't want to feel as if you're there? Yes, I concede there are some things we absolutely wouldn't report out of respect for a grieving family. However, our job is to inform the public, and that doesn't always make everyone happy. That is the nature of our job. But we're not here to make you happy, we're here to give you information. If you don't want the information, then stop reading. And I hate to say it, but I seriously doubt that reporting "wailing from the house" is going to hurt the family worse than the loss of their son. Why would it hurt them for people to know they were mourning a murdered family member?

Now IR starts saying that he bets if we started losing subscriptions, we'd change our "policy" (I tried explaining to him a thousand times that it's not OUR policy to report this way, it's the journalism industry's as a whole...but he continued to be a putz, so why bother). He said we sensationalize on purpose to get money.

No. I realize I can't speak for the whole industry, but from a personal level, we're going to sell papers regardless. Therefore, sensationalism isn't necessary. Besides, "wailing" is not sensationalism. It was heard from the sidewalk, which is a public place and could be experienced by anyone who was standing there. I then said that when the case goes to court and people start giving graphic testimony and autopsy photos come out, and the family is in attendance, did he expect us to not report that stuff too? Because we might offend or hurt the family? What about people wailing over their dead in the Middle East? Are we obligated to keep that out of the paper as well?

He started hemming and hawing about how the Middle East is war, and that's different. And I said violence is violence, and we have a duty to report all the details -- within our rights -- of any violent act so that the public is aware, and perhaps even inspired to prevent violence in their own communities, and thank you very much for calling, but I have to go to a meeting now, and you are welcome to write a letter to the editor. Then IR plays the seniority card and says he wants to call someone higher up. So I give him my boss' number and think to myself, "Ha, you'll probably have even less fun with him." My boss has very little patience and silver tongue when it comes to debating journalistic standards.

The whole call got me riled up, because he kept insisting that he wanted us to change our "policy." And I told him good luck, but it ain't gonna happen. So what does he do? He just freaking showed up at the office! He asked for my boss, who won't be here for another hour, and said he wanted to effect an editorial policy change. Sheesh, people. Are you serious?

I can't wait for my boss to get here and tear this guy up. However, I have to say that it's just another reminder of how little people understand of what journalists do, and HAVE to do, in order to give readers information. Sometimes that's so frustrating.