Sometimes you really don't want to know
One of the major roles of a free press is to defend the public’s right to know. Journalists do battle on a daily basis to open meetings to the public, to attain records involving public figures or public money, and to make sure that anyone who cares to seek out information has access to it.
That said, sometimes you really don’t want to know all the details. The kinds of things the public might not want to know include specifics concerning criminal activities, specifics about crime scenes and graphic details of accidents.
When those issues arise in the newsroom, we discuss them. We try to balance public interest and rights with concerns about the people involved and, quite frankly, with the graphic nature of the information.
Last week we ran a story containing some fairly graphic information about the body of a man who apparently had been dead for some time. The reporter discussed the information with editors and a decision was made to include that information, but not in the lead (the first paragraph) of the story. In other words, we were willing to share that information with our readers, but we didn’t want to slap them in the face with it.
Those who might have missed the story and want to read, what, admittedly, is a difficult story, can find it here.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17830714&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6
Today, we ran another story, which also contained some graphic information. In this case, there was no discussion, no red flags raised, and no opportunity to ponder. The reporter didn’t use good journalistic judgment in including unnecessary information.
You won’t read that story here, because we have modified the version on our Web site to omit the graphic elements.
I could, at this point, expand this entry to wail on about deadlines and time pressures and the amount of material that moves through our computers on a daily basis, but the reality is we shouldn’t have done what we did. We apologize for the lapse in judgment.
That said, sometimes you really don’t want to know all the details. The kinds of things the public might not want to know include specifics concerning criminal activities, specifics about crime scenes and graphic details of accidents.
When those issues arise in the newsroom, we discuss them. We try to balance public interest and rights with concerns about the people involved and, quite frankly, with the graphic nature of the information.
Last week we ran a story containing some fairly graphic information about the body of a man who apparently had been dead for some time. The reporter discussed the information with editors and a decision was made to include that information, but not in the lead (the first paragraph) of the story. In other words, we were willing to share that information with our readers, but we didn’t want to slap them in the face with it.
Those who might have missed the story and want to read, what, admittedly, is a difficult story, can find it here.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17830714&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6
Today, we ran another story, which also contained some graphic information. In this case, there was no discussion, no red flags raised, and no opportunity to ponder. The reporter didn’t use good journalistic judgment in including unnecessary information.
You won’t read that story here, because we have modified the version on our Web site to omit the graphic elements.
I could, at this point, expand this entry to wail on about deadlines and time pressures and the amount of material that moves through our computers on a daily basis, but the reality is we shouldn’t have done what we did. We apologize for the lapse in judgment.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 1:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home