Does factual reporting need ALL the facts?
The other night a friend, a news anchor, called me in tears asking how I get through some stories without completely falling apart on air. Sometimes, frankly, I do fall apart on the air. These days, it’s exceptionally hard as we report a 14-year-old boy being charged as an adult for raping and killing a 4-year-old boy. What’s weighing on me with this story is how it’s being covered in TV newscasts. I’m conflicted as a journalist, TV news anchor, and mother.
The 14 year old confessed some gruesome details, according to court documents. Tell me, when does the viewer need to know these gruesome details of rape, sodomy and murder - while putting breakfast out for the kids, while making dinner with kids doing homework at the kitchen table, late at night when the kids are already in bed? We walk a fine line every day between the community’s need - to - know and plain and simple voyeurism. What is our job? I think this question needs to be asked often, especially as we decide what facts to include in stories like this. For instance, the court heard the teen’s explanation, that he lured the 4 year old to his home, that he lured him into the bathroom where he raped the little boy. The 14 year old said that once the little boy said he was going to tell his mom, the teen decided to kill the boy. So then, he drowned the child in the bathtub. See, what gets me here, is that children are always told to tell their parents or a trusted person if something bad happens to them. Now, by airing this story, while kids watch, we’ve given a very clear example of how doing the right thing ended up killing a little boy. How do parents explain that? I don’t want to be the sick messenger here. I don’t want to be the reason a viewer turns off the TV. Viewers deserve more respect. So, back to the original question: when do we air these details in a newscast, and when do we just say that the disturbing details of the case can by found on our website?
Many times TV crime stories have extra details on a death because that’s what the police gave in a press conference or press release. I think it’s up to the reporter, producer and anchor (as well as the news director who leads the staff with clear, concise and consistent protocol.) Dead is dead. The little boy is dead. That’s tragic in and of itself! Sharing details of the death seems unnecessary. It’s like reporting that the victim of a car accident was alive when she was pulled out of the car, but she convulsed, bled out and died on the way to the hospital. Why do we need details like that? She died!
I’m reminded that our job is to write for the viewer. What the breakfast making viewer wants is different from what the late at night adult with kids asleep viewer wants. That’s important for all of us in TV news to remember. I feel that’s obvious, but I’m a 43 year old mother of two who’s done this for a while. I don’t know if my 25-year-old self gave this as much thought. Life perspective changes the way we report.
Something else that gives raw perspective is talking face to face with viewers who say they don’t like watching ‘The News’ because it’s too depressing. They say they like Great Day because they get the news in a compassionate way sparing no facts, but adding more heart. That’s critical to me, out of respect for the viewer. We’re here to inform and help them positively start their day, not depress them, or scare them.
So, that’s my thought. I suspect plenty disagree saying we can’t candy coat the news. I don’t want to be a Pollyanna agenda setter here. I just don’t remember when the line of decorum got pushed because society became more accepting of gory details. Can’t we still give the facts in a TV newscast, and leave the gory stuff to another venue, like our web stories?
And by the way, may the young boy’s family find some way to survive this, because I can’t imagine how I could.
The 14 year old confessed some gruesome details, according to court documents. Tell me, when does the viewer need to know these gruesome details of rape, sodomy and murder - while putting breakfast out for the kids, while making dinner with kids doing homework at the kitchen table, late at night when the kids are already in bed? We walk a fine line every day between the community’s need - to - know and plain and simple voyeurism. What is our job? I think this question needs to be asked often, especially as we decide what facts to include in stories like this. For instance, the court heard the teen’s explanation, that he lured the 4 year old to his home, that he lured him into the bathroom where he raped the little boy. The 14 year old said that once the little boy said he was going to tell his mom, the teen decided to kill the boy. So then, he drowned the child in the bathtub. See, what gets me here, is that children are always told to tell their parents or a trusted person if something bad happens to them. Now, by airing this story, while kids watch, we’ve given a very clear example of how doing the right thing ended up killing a little boy. How do parents explain that? I don’t want to be the sick messenger here. I don’t want to be the reason a viewer turns off the TV. Viewers deserve more respect. So, back to the original question: when do we air these details in a newscast, and when do we just say that the disturbing details of the case can by found on our website?
Many times TV crime stories have extra details on a death because that’s what the police gave in a press conference or press release. I think it’s up to the reporter, producer and anchor (as well as the news director who leads the staff with clear, concise and consistent protocol.) Dead is dead. The little boy is dead. That’s tragic in and of itself! Sharing details of the death seems unnecessary. It’s like reporting that the victim of a car accident was alive when she was pulled out of the car, but she convulsed, bled out and died on the way to the hospital. Why do we need details like that? She died!
I’m reminded that our job is to write for the viewer. What the breakfast making viewer wants is different from what the late at night adult with kids asleep viewer wants. That’s important for all of us in TV news to remember. I feel that’s obvious, but I’m a 43 year old mother of two who’s done this for a while. I don’t know if my 25-year-old self gave this as much thought. Life perspective changes the way we report.
Something else that gives raw perspective is talking face to face with viewers who say they don’t like watching ‘The News’ because it’s too depressing. They say they like Great Day because they get the news in a compassionate way sparing no facts, but adding more heart. That’s critical to me, out of respect for the viewer. We’re here to inform and help them positively start their day, not depress them, or scare them.
So, that’s my thought. I suspect plenty disagree saying we can’t candy coat the news. I don’t want to be a Pollyanna agenda setter here. I just don’t remember when the line of decorum got pushed because society became more accepting of gory details. Can’t we still give the facts in a TV newscast, and leave the gory stuff to another venue, like our web stories?
And by the way, may the young boy’s family find some way to survive this, because I can’t imagine how I could.
Comments
Post a Comment