In yesterday's Reporting for Mass Media class, I asked: When do publications normally move on from a tragedy? In other words, when will journalists stop publishing information about tragedies that happened years ago? Let's take Sept. 11 as an example.
I asked this question because I seriously believe in moving forward. So what exactly is the ethical explanation for bringing up tragic occurrences each year? Okay, so the 9/11 remembrance was in honor of the lives lost. Build a memorial and let's move this country forward. It just seems like a huge hinderance to me.
I hate to say it, but I feel this way about the May 4 incident at Kent State University as well. The Daily Kent Stater has printed at least one story a week about May 4 for what seems like the past month and a half. I understand that this was a very serious and tragic event, and there have been some new developments in this story. But hasn't it been 40 years?
So is it okay to put these tragedies to rest after 5 years? 10 years? To me it just feels like we're reporting on the "anniversaries" of these tragedies because we're waiting for the next tragedy to occur so we can report on that instead. Besides, what's so ethical about reminding an audience of the loved ones they've lost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is an interesting viewpoint shared by many. When I have pondered this issue I always try to think of "walking in the shoes" of the victims' family members. Perhaps, these annual reminders of unnecessary loss serve to honor those who died. Do you see the conflicting loyalties in this issue?
Yes, I mentioned in the blog that the annual reminders are probably one way to honor those lives or to make it known that they have not been forgotten. At some point, "keeping their memories alive" should be something the families and friends are dedicated to. Not the media.
But it seems to me that the media feels obligated to do this. As if deciding not to cover the anniversary of 9/11 would somehow be wrong and frowned upon.
So why is it that these topics have to be covered year after year when technically it's no longer newsworthy? Can we even go as far as saying that the media's coverage of 9/11 and other tragedies hinder society from moving forward?
RE
Post a Comment