Media wallowing in misery
Consider this column from the mother of a lacrosse player whose son died during warm up:
Interspersed throughout these horrific times was media behavior that was deplorable. On Wednesday night, one reporter tried to get into the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit but, thank God, was unsuccessful at doing so. Two of Jeff’s closest friends — both 14-year-olds — received cell phone calls from reporters on Wednesday night — one or two hours after they had learned that Jeff had died. Jeff’s coach was called by a TV reporter who said that the athletic director had given the coach permission to talk to the reporter. No such permission had ever been granted.
Early Thursday morning less than 15 hours after learning of my son’s death, the phone rang in his hospital room. I picked it up to hear a TV reporter on the other end of the line. I almost ripped the phone out of the wall.
Later that same morning, completely emotionally and physically exhausted, barely able to remember to put one foot in front of the other and constantly having to remind ourselves of the need to breathe, we went home for showers. As we did, we were approached by a reporter holding a steno pad. That I did not physically assault him the moment I saw him was a miracle. Friday morning after spending almost 36 hours in the hospital beside our dead son, we arrived home. The phone rang about an hour after we had returned. We picked it up and it was yet another reporter.
These hours were simply hellish. There was no way to escape the horror, shock and intense pain we felt immediately following Jeff’s death. But the media’s actions during this same time period were indecent, disrespectful and inhumane.
My thoughts: It’s hard to give give the benefit of the doubt to these reporters. Calling 14-year-olds on their cell phones? Lying to the coach? Calling a family in the hospital room while they are waiting for their boy’s organs to be harvested? Unannounced ambush interviews as the family leaves their home? Ugh. But the problem is not just that there’s one single reporter doing this. It’s a pack of them.
This incident is less offensive than what happened recently in Peoria, but not by a much. It’s no big deal for an editor to assign a reporter to attend funeral services with notebook in hand, or to send a photographer to take pictures of the friends and family members leaving that same services, where, with luck, the photog will capture forever someone whose face is contorted with grief.
It’s been suggested that families ought to name a spokesperson and they the media deal with that person. That won’t work in a competitive environment, because reporters want “color” and quotes the others guys’s don’t have.
The only cure for this behavior is to just simply refuse to do it. Reporters have to have the guts to say “no, there’s no real news value in this, other than it will sell papers and help ratings.”
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
At the newspaper where I once worked we generally tried to call people other than the immediate family for comments right after a tragedy — for example, school principals or teachers at the school a youth attended, or someone at the person’s workplace.
We would not try to contact immediate family unless they contacted us first (which sometimes happened), or unless friends, teachers, etc. indicated that the family wanted to talk to us, or until after the funeral.
I thought this was a reasonable way to get some comments about what the deceased person was like and what people would miss about them without getting right in the family’s face at a time of grief.
As a reporter I once attended a funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. The very first thing I did was to go through the receiving line with all the other mourners, introduce myself to each family member, explain why I was there and offer my sympathies. They were very appreciative and later sent me a touching thank-you note which I still have.
I think a few simple rules of courtesy — get your initial comments from people other than the immediate family unless the immediate family contacts you first, and if you cover the funeral, go through the receiving line like everyone else — would enable media to cover tragic death stories adequately without being intrusive.
Well at the risk of being admonished, I happen to take a slightly different point of view. If you take the recent death of Danny, the soccer player for instance, may God rest his soul, reporting on the reactions of the friends and family of this young man might serve as a deterrant to other people who may be prone to reckless and irresponsible behavior. It demonstrates CONSEQUENCES, and would hopefully make some stop and think about possible future outcomes. How many times have you read of a tragic story only to think “I hope that never happens to me”. Of course there is a line that should not be crossed, but it is a newsworthy story that should be reported on. And unfortunately the only way to get the human side of it is to talk to those that loved him.
I’d never admonish anyone honest thoughtful opinion.
I’m not complaining about the need to report on the crime. I take issue with the specific things that were done.
Report the crime, but don’t sit in the back of a church taking notes during a Catholic Funeral Mass after being respectfully asked not to attend, and don’t hang outside of the church with a camera and upset the family when you’ve been asked not to attend, and don’t reprint the family’s only press release about their son, pretend it’s out of respect, and leave out the part about their not wanting the press not showing up at the visitation or funeral mass after throwing it on the front page of the paper.
I witnessed HOI pull up in-front of the Dahlquist house on the afternoon of Danny’s death. It was distasteful, but they left when asked and did not return.