Hard Questions
Two articles in the New York Times today about a recent kidnapping that sparked national attention ask hard questions about the press and about what it means to be a good neighbor.This op-ed piece forces any journalist, or anyone who reads or watches the news, to question how we exposed these kidnapping survivors.
And this article about the guilt neighbors feel for not noticing a kidnapper and his victim in their midst must make us ask ourselves whether staying out of other people's business really is polite.
I'd be more than glad to hear some opinions on these pieces and the questions they raise.
posted by Tina @ 9:55 PM
4 Comments:
I found both pieces pretty interesting. I do agree that a rape victim’s identity should remain anonymous; my newspaper’s policy on sex offenders is that we only cover it if the suspect is an authority figure (a teacher, preacher or parent, for example). I think the Missouri kidnapping story exemplifies the problem with 24-hour media outlets, whether it’s CNN or the Web, and all the allotted time that has to be filled with content, especially broadcast media which needs images. With so many news stations and their commentators and analysts dissecting every single aspect of something that may or may not be news and may or may not be important, there’s more speculation than facts. Politics — like the war in Iraq or healthcare, for example — is one thing, but when it comes to the Missouri case, is it really necessary?
I’m sure Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wanted their pictures splashed across Time magazine after the Columbine massacre. Speaking of which, media speculation resulted in rumors of their membership in a “Trenchcoat Mafia” and the killers’ obsession with Nazism, neither of which was ever proven. As a matter of fact, the Columbine Report which investigated the tragedy recommended that the media not focus so much attention on schoolhouse shooters and the specifics of their crimes because it’ll spark copycat crimes. If the mainstream media wants to be taken seriously and not be listed among society’s greatest reprobates along with lawyers and politicians, they need to realize that not everything should be or can be sensationalized. There’s a difference between an agenda-setting story and gratuitous sensationalism. As I’ve said in the past, there are three kinds of malevolent journalists: yellow journalists (ones more concerned about jingoism, sensationalism and mongering), spin doctors (ones who twist, perverse or discredit facts with demagoguery, bias or political agendas) and media whores (ones who prostitute their journalistic integrity for corporate interests and/or unethical practices).
As for the article on bad Samaritans, so to speak, I don’t fully agree that people want to stay out of other people’s family affairs — most families would gladly share relatives’ success stories — but I do think most people live more secluded lives and don’t want to interfere in another person’s life. In general, I think it’s more about apathy than distrust. I’m polite to my neighbors whenever I bump into them but don’t take the extra step to talk up a conversation or get to know them; that’s also partially because I’m a shy person. Apartment living is different also because there’s less sense of community when most of the tenants are only there for a brief stint and shares little in common with their neighbors.
When it comes to crimes though, one case study stands out. In 1964, Kitty Genovese, 29, was fatally stabbed and assaulted by a man outside her apartment in Queens at night and a handful of witnesses did nothing to help. Although it’s likely the attack happened out of most of their views and the noises were mistaken for something else, the media response was that about 40 people did nothing to help someone in trouble; one person was anonymously quoted as saying, “I didn’t want to get involved.” It resulted in criticism of New Yorkers and urbanites of being uncaring and apathetic. I suppose the Genovese murder is an example of people not being alert enough of their surroundings and the media blowing something out of proportion.
What are your thoughts, Tina? I'm interested to hear your opinion!
Very good points, Mike, and thank you for commenting! (Sorry I've been neglecting my blogging duties of late.)
I do think the 24-hour news cycle has resulted in lazy reporting and too many misstatements. It seems we are filling up our days with news we don't need at the expense of those poor souls who happen to make the news. What we don't think about it how our 24/7 coverage will affect these people - as they are PEOPLE - who we exploit to our own advantages.
I know that in my writing I've been making a concious effort to think about how what I do affects others. It's tough to do that sometimes, but one exercise we did at Columbia, where we each interviewed a classmate and wrote a profile on him or her, really opened my eyes, both to being interviewed and to being the subject of a story. I found that some questions were uncomfortable to answer and when a quote was taken out of context, it stung. I think every journalist should try this type of exercise.
And as for the neighbor thing, we're all guilty of it. I don't even attempt to talk with my neighbors and I wonder what I would do if I heard what sounded like a fight or an attack. I think New Yorkers learned a lot from Kitty Genovese, though, and I'd like to think that we'd never let something like that happen again.
No worries on the late responses, I know you've been busy!
Well said. To think that the only news Americans saw on a daily basis until the early 1960s was 15-minute segments and going to 30 minutes was a big deal. The days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are over.
I definitely agree with the emphasis on PEOPLE and that interviewing exercise. There's a Maori proverb that journalists of all kinds should take to heart: "What's the most important thing in life? People, people, people." When we lose the faith and trust of the people, we lose everything.
Post a Comment
<< Home