sd099211@ohio.edu
The way that the media handles crime reports and devastating stories these days are very unethical This may sound like a strong opinion, but many families are affected by these reports each year.
It seems like as soon as you lose a loved one, your immediately put on the spot to open up to the world about what has just happened that has changed your life forever. This is allowed in broadcast journalism?
What's wrong with kids these days?
School shootings take place far too often these days. It blows my mind what kids from these upcoming generations have been capable of doing, and how often these shootings have occurred. I'm not saying that these mass killings haven't happened in the past, but these days it seems like every time you turn on the news, some kids have been killed or wounded during school.
It's not just terrible because it happens, it's terrible that an hour after these shootings occur, journalists show up to the scene to broadcast the whole event, and ask questions to those who were either involved in these shootings, or those who have been personally affected by someone who was shot and killed. A lot of time security is forced to step in to make sure that these families get a brief moment to mourn the loss of a loved one before they are bombarded with questions.
It's way to hard to monitor this type of news, and to prevent those type of situations from happening. Each station needs ratings, and the only way to get them is to report on the stories that will appeal to the heart, and on the stories that greatly affect the community.
What happened to ethical Journalism?
Last year in Boston, Massachusetts, a bomb went off during the annual Boston Marathon. The bomb that went off killed five people and wounded hundreds. Video of the surrounding area was immediately put onto the web for everyone to see. Those who had family members that were affected could immediately see video of how their loved ones were hurt.
As soon as this video went online, it was embedded into the worldwide web forever. Those personally affected would never truly be able to get away from what happened that day, and that has a lot to due with the way media is reported to the public.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the main terrorist who set off the bomb was eventually found and arrested. A few months after the bomb went off, Rolling Stones magazine used Tsarnaev on the cover of their magazine.
This popularized the man who tried to kill almost 400 people at the marathon saying that he was a popular student that was failed by his family. Not only did this make the bomber look like a rock star, but it also made it seem like it was OK for doing what he did, and that it wasn't his fault.
(Via Google Images)
Stories like this make other kids think that they can go out and kill their fellow classmates because they can blame it on their other problems. If the media didn't publicize every single detail about these mass killings, and tried to censor some of the information, the number of school shootings and similar events could be reduced.
Would censorship even work?
I really don't know if censorship could work in broadcast journalism. I think it would be a lot easier to censor information in print stories, but when it comes to video reporting, the only way to report a good story is by showing the facts. This includes B-roll footage of where the event took place, what events transpired, and who was involved.
I also think it would be hard to censor names because the public sometimes needs to know that information. This allows the community to help out the law enforcement by keeping an eye out for the suspect, and to be able to give any information that someone may know regarding the case.
It may be too hard to completely censor some of the vital information, but for the sake of the public, news corporations should really consider a way to be more sensitive with the way the story is reported, and how reporters treat the people affected by these horrible killings.
No comments:
Post a Comment