Tagged: grief porn
A veteran speaks out against grief porn – (ctd.)
Contrarian reader RM thinks our post crossed the line:
[T]his commentary was in poor taste. Yes, this veteran has every right to comment, but I think it is more important to respect the views of the the family of the fallen soldier. Let us make our comments without seeming to criticize the wishes of the family.
A veteran speaks out against grief porn
One particularly noisome aspect of modern journalism is its fixation with grief porn: those maudlin public displays of grief over tragic events by people otherwise uninvolved in the lives of those actually afflicted. Grief porn is wholly a product of media pandering. it’s a way for people to feel good about themselves — and just incidentally show the world how good they are — by displaying, often in bizarre or saccharin fashion, how badly they feel about the misfortunes of strangers – especially spectacular or notorious misfortunes besetting newsworthy or celebrity strangers.
Well, here’s a rare exception: a gutsy interview by CBC Cape Breton reporter Bobby Nock with a World War II veteran who dares speak out against these unseemly displays.
An ethical guide to grief porn
University of Wisconsin Journalism Professor Stephen J. A. Ward, who was founding chair of the Canadian Association of Journalists’ ethics advisory committee, offers sensible guidelines for coverage of emotional stories like the Haitian earthquake [previous discussion here, here, and here]:
The best disaster journalism is engaged and objectively tested journalism. Journalism based only on emotion can be incorrect or manipulated. Journalism based only on a studied neutrality is not only an inhuman attitude toward a disaster. It fails to tell the full story.
A journalism of disasters is not a journalism of Olympian detachment. It is not a journalism fixated on stimulating the emotions of audiences. It is a humanistic journalism that combines reason and emotion. Humanistic journalists bring empathy to bear on the victims of tragedy – an empathy informed by facts and critical analysis.
Hat tip: Ruth Davenport
Another take on grief porn
Contrarian reader Miles Tompkins:
I would like to see that little kid ask Anderson Cooper where the hell he’s been for the past 20 years.
Meek slags Ormiston’s grief porn – feedback
Cliff White defends Ormiston:
I happened to catch both the clip of Ormiston holding the hand of, and then carrying, the little boy, and the one of Cooper tousling the head of another. I didn’t think there was any comparison. I was moved by the first and disgusted by the second.
Watching Ormiston’s reports over the last week or so, it’s obvious she has been deeply affected by what she’s seeing and reporting on. Her actions conveyed a real human warmth. It’s not such a bad thing for viewers to occasionally see that reporters are not just automatons, but are real people with real emotions. On the other hand Cooper’s actions seemed a classic illustration of the opposite, a reporter cynically faking concern hoping to heighten the impact of his story.
As I said in the original post (about a Herald column by Jim Meek), I did not see the Ormiston piece. I did see, and didn’t like, Cooper’s display of affection, but I would not presume to say he was faking. My objection is to making the reporter’s display of compassion, real or contrived, the focus of a story, when the focus ought to be on the people who have been harmed by the catastrophe, and those who are trying to help.
It’s obviously a difficult line to walk, but surely this is a situation that calls for the most rigorous possible factual reporting, rather than titillation.
