When bad things happen to good people
One of the common rhetorical questions editors get from readers angry about something we've published goes like this: "What would you have written if this had happened to your own child?"
The fact is that we purposely try to avoid thinking like that. If we did consider that question, we would violate one of our journalistic tenets, which is not to use the newspaper for personal reasons. Running news through a filter of "would I want this written about my child" distorts reality. Imagine that sort of newspaper: No stories about fraud, corruption, drunken driving or drug use. (Not that my daughter would ever be involved in any of these things.) No photos of athletic short comings or emotionally distraught people. In short, a nice paper celebrating good things happening to good people.
A few years ago, we published a photo of a woman whose who's house had burned down. The look of anguish and fear on her face was palpable. The photo said more about the impact of a house fire than any photo of ashes and charred brick. We got feedback from people asking how we could have published such a photo, portraying the woman in such a harsh light. Yes, one asked "what if that had been your wife?"
Coincidentally, I recognized her at a party we were both attending a couple weeks later. I introduced myself. I asked her if she thought we had done the wrong thing by publishing the photo. She laughed and said that her teenage daughter was embarrassed but that she thought it captured the way she felt. She was fine with the photo, although she could have just been being nice.
Sometimes the glass is half full, and we publish plenty of stories that celebrate achievement. Sometimes it's half empty, and we write about bad things happening to good people.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John:
Why won't you release a copy of the leaked RMA report to David Wray's lawyers?
Do you feel you broke the law by publishing parts of the memo?
What makes you and your staff above the law?
Jeffrey Sykes
Posted on March 10, 2006 6:20 PM
Jeff, I take it that you feel we broke the law by writing about the report. If so, could you please explain what law(s) you think the paper broke, and why? Thanks.
Posted on March 10, 2006 10:13 PM
Lex:
I am not a lawyer, but the city was quoted on WFMY as saying that any distribution of the RMA report would be a violation of state personnel privacy laws.
What is the newspaper's answer to that allegation by the city?
Posted on March 10, 2006 10:56 PM
Lex, why do you keep butting in when people ask questions of Mr. Robinson? Why don't you stick to your own pathetic little blog and let mr. Robinson defend himself?
Posted on March 10, 2006 11:56 PM
"who's" house, John?
I'm with you on the RMA report. If people/bloggers want access, they can seek their own confidential sources. You did the work, you acquired the report; handle it as you see fit or as your agreement dictates.
But a woman "who's" house burned down? I'm having trouble with that one.
Posted on March 11, 2006 2:37 AM
Jeff, I'll let JR speak for the newspaper. But while I'm not a lawyer, I can tell you that, in general, our system puts the onus on government officials not to release confidential records but, in the interest of a free press, does not punish journalists who accept and publish them. (There's a move afoot to change that law at the national level, to adopt something along the lines of the UK's Official Secrets Act.)
Posted on March 11, 2006 9:57 AM
Chewie, oops. I'll fix that.
Jaycee, lighten up, friend. Everyone is welcome here.
Jeffrey, Lex is correct.
I'd like to redirect further discussion of the report release to the next post, just to satisfy my anal-retentive side. Thanks.
Posted on March 11, 2006 10:52 AM
Dear Lord People, at the very least make your comments at, and to, the correct posting. THE REPORT is on another entry. As to this one, a picture they say is worth a thousand words and to show the charred remains of the woman's house would not have revealed her pain and engaged the publics desire to help her in her time of need, whereas her evident anguish did. The facial expression of extreme sadness is not pretty but it does what it needs to do, ie. tell the human side of the story which is the only side we really need to respond to.
Posted on March 11, 2006 12:17 PM