One of the most difficult things about my job is contacting people who are in the middle of dealing with the loss of a loved-one. It's awkward and terrible and sometimes I really hate making the phone call, all while deeply questioning why I work in this industry. I bury those feelings once the dial tone hits my ear, and I become a robot on the outside...at least for a while.
If I don't make the call, I'll likely be blamed for not getting their perspective or their side of the story, either by viewers and/or the victim's relatives.
Or....
If I do make the call, I'll be blamed for intruding on their private moment and exploiting their grief, either by viewers and/or the victim's relatives.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
No matter what though, I acknowledge that my feelings and troubles of doing my job pale in comparison to what loved-ones are going through.
My awkwardness shouldn't matter, only the cold hard facts, right? And who cares about the victims and their feelings? Only the facts should be reported, right?
The cold hard facts.
When is it appropriate to report all the cold-hard facts? Immediately, no matter who is dead and no matter who is suffering with grief?
These are questions running though my mind this week after covering the case of the four teens who were killed by a suspected drunk driver.
I wasn't working the day it happened. I do remember feeling sadness and anger over their deaths when I opened my laptop to read the news on that Sunday morning.
Soon, I began to not look forward to covering the story and making those....calls. I know tragedy breeds anger. And what better target are the "vultures" holding the notepads, microphones and audio recorders ready to report every cold, hard fact?
I covered the story, trying to be delicate as possible and to be as fair as possible with the public's interest and the private interests of the families at mind. After all, viewers expect us reporters to treat grieving families with respect. I expect that of myself.
As I predicted, one man sent me a message via a public forum accusing me of passing off a "sob story" and not telling the "whole story" about the crash. It was his impression my report was biased and one-sided.
I was dumbfounded and confused, wondering how a reporter avoids a "sob story" when four young people suddenly lose their lives.
He was angry that I did not report the fact that Avree Koffman shouldn't have had that many people in her car because she had a conditional license as a teen driver. It's a fact that should be reported, the man said, saying suspected drunk-driver Scott Owens is not the only one to blame. A cold-hard fact.
Koffman is still in the hospital with head injuries who has no memory of the crash and who lost four friends. When she becomes completely coherent, there's no doubt her emotional pain will overwhelm her in ways I can only imagine.
The Sheriff's Department has not criticized Koffman nor has it stated Koffman's conditional license was the direct cause of the crash. But is it relevant and necessary to report immediately?
The Sheriff's Department says Owens drove the wrong way and was driving drunk at twice the legal limit. That's the suspected cause, and that must be reported.
I didn't mention Koffman's conditional license in my report, feeling it wasn't relevant and necessary at that moment, and out of respect for Koffman and her family. That fact could be reported later, if deemed relevant, I thought. My newsroom took and still continues to take the same position, although I do believe we may have briefly mentioned it.
Am I wrong on all of this? Maybe.
I responded to the criticism in a way I usually don't. I aggressively defended myself and my report. I was abrupt, direct and defensive. He became my target and I realized at that moment when I got caught up in the exchange of messages...that I was angry too.
Who do I direct my anger at? Who can I blame?
It was at this moment I realized some viewers expect and want us reporters to be emotionless and to report all the cold-hard facts despite the feelings of families.
Some of them want us to be.........vultures.
-----------------------------
jeremyjojola.com
5 comments:
I do not think that you were wrong to not report the fact that she had a conditional license and should not by definition have had that many people in her car. It is not relevant to what happened. Had Scott Owens not been driving drunk down that highway, those young people would have been just fine. There was no need to even mention her conditional license. If she had been the sole driver in the accident then and only then would it have been relevant, and still I don't think it would be necessary to report it.
I understand your reaction of anger and defensiveness. This man questioned your work and your professional integrity. There was nothing wrong with your report, and no need to report about the license. Honestly I did not hear any report about her license until your blog. You are a great reporter and although I primarily watch a different newscast I often watch when I know you will be reporting. Don't change anything that you are doing!
Perhaps her license was conditional. The fact remains that he was driving drunk down the wrong side of the road. Perhaps her inexperience as a driver made the situation worse. But, remove the drunk driver careening toward you and insert other object in the road, say, a deer. I really doubt the consequences would have been as dire. Probably just a dented car, a flat tire, and 5 scared teens on the side of the road.
I sincerely doubt the cold hard fact of her conditional license would have even made the news. As it shouldn't matter now.
Shoulda coulda woulda!!
Teenagers should not be denied their livelihood because of irresponsible, careless, ignorant, and self-centered idiots that MAKE THE CHOICE to get drunk off their miserable asses then jump into a vehicle.
THAT is the cold hard fact.
Well, I think I will finally get this off my chest: I'm ambivalent.
Yes her provisional license was not a factor IN THE WRECK, but it definitely was a factor in the death of four innocents.
It tosses and turns in my mind all the time. I wish it would go away.
I've written freelance journalism for the past decade, and while I can relate to the reticence of having to make tough phone calls, I cannot put myself in your shoes. I don't know how you manage to pick up the phone, chase the story, get the quotes when the compassion on the inside says to leave them alone and let them grieve. It's a tough, tough balancing act.
I do have to say as a mother, I spent that very same night chewing out my two teenage kids (18, 16) for getting home late from a climbing trip. They heard me say what I often say to them, "Nothing good happens on the road after dark." I have good kids - great kids, actually, but that's when drunks and those up to no good are out on the streets.
They thought me over-protective and boring.
Until the next morning when the news hit that on that very same highway and the very same night four young innocent lives were taken by a drunk driver. My kids were the first to notice that there were so many teens in the car, that the number was over the capacity of a provisional license. They talked with their friends about the horrid, permanent consequences of making an exception to take a few more along - and their sympathy for the young lady left behind who would not only have to deal with the grief of bereavement but of the questions and doubts that would plague her long past her own injuries.
So, yes it was a part of the story, one that carried a message that my own kids took to heart.
But don't lose your compassion, your sensitivity for the people behind the story; it's why your tales tug at others' heart strings - you feel them first yourself.
Thanks for your comments. I really really appreciate them and your insight.
Perhaps when more time passes and we look back on this case, the issue over Koffman's conditional license may call attention to why such teen licenses are conditional.
For now, though, pointing out this technicality while the teen driver is in a hospital room stricken with grief, may not be appropriate to focus on now, because it wasn't a factor in the *cause* of the crash.
I do think this forum and method of discussing it within this medium provides an appropriate discussion about the issue rather than pointing it out on the news--after all the driver is a child.
Thank you for the feed back.
Jeremy
Post a Comment