A very helpful explanation of a topic many people have typically misunderstood. As far as reducing gun violence, until we can get campaign finance reform so that the NRA doesn’t “buy” politicians and obligate them into taking ridiculous positions, I fear little beyond the worn-out “thoughts and prayers’ stuff will happen. The far right has shown it is not THAT deep into protecting the Constitution when it comes to other issues. They say and do what they they say and do because they are financially obligated - there’s always another campaign to finance.
I am ambivalent about interviewing the family of victims after the victim has just died. It feels crass and intrusive. If the family wants total about their family member after they have had time to absorb the shock and rawness of the experience, that is another story. But moving in right after the death feels like violating the family a second ty
Dave, appreciate you taking time for this ‘extra’ article which helps a bystander, like me, understand how best to work through this type of situation. I have been fearing for this type of incident to happen in Iowa. Isn’t that sad and awful that we are now becoming numb and just waiting for the inevitable to happen? Thanks for the extra email.
I don’t care for the idea of calling the victims’ families or showing up at their front door. To me, that’s far too intrusive. I suppose using an intermediary is appropriate in these situations, though, but I agree that if declined, then leave them alone at least for a couple weeks. Besides, I think most people know how to contact their local media outlets if they truly want to do an interview or make statements.
Excellent column, Dave. I'm so glad you addressed this issue.
I interviewed many families who had endured tragedy during my years in broadcast journalism. As you mentioned, most of them were grateful to be given a voice. But I made sure to set the correct tone.
When done correctly, these kind of interviews are powerful -- for both the victims and the viewer/reader. It would be a shame to avoid them as standard operating procedure.
Dave, this is an excellent essay about the time and place for interviewing the victims or disasters--whether natural or man-made. You are absolutely correct about the various ways that reporters can approach families. And their voices help us relate to the human component that goes beyond a simple recitation of facts.
Agreed, Dave. This was well worth the extra column. It's worth lots of diligence and reflection on the part of journalists, too. Our school teaches an entire course on trauma-informed reporting. Over the years, I have learned a few practical, very valuable lessons from those who've lost loved ones.
It can be both compassionate and good journalism to ask open-ended questions about the life, rather than the death, of the person lost, e.g., "What do you want people to know about ______?"
Grieving loved ones often appreciate attention to detail. Did the person you're reporting on go by a middle name or nickname, rather than what might be listed on some official roster? Is there a favorite photo the family would like to have used, rather than something you found on Facebook or elsewhere?
And, while talking about loss -- for some people, at some point -- might be therapeutic, it is not the job of journalists to suggest such a thing in the pursuit of an interview. Reporters are not qualified to counsel survivors and should not presume to do so. It is their job to tell stories accurately and responsibly. Talking to grieving families is sometimes a part of that. That means sometimes it's not.
Dave, this is a great "second day" angle. It caused a lot of angst when I was in the news business. I remember during the 1979-80 Iran hostage-taking having to keep in regular touch with the mother of a Marine held in Iran. Only rarely did I tape record and air anything, but she never seemed to mind my calls. That doesn't mean I didn't feel nervous every time I dialed her number.
A second question besides whether victims' families should be interviewed, is what should the news organization air or print? Does it add to the story or is it pure emotional sadness that doesn't really inform the audience or does it share something abut the relationship to the victim. On the other side, I feel the same way about interviewing neighbors of suspects. "He was a good neighbor, never caused any problems," is not relevant to the crime.
I received the following email from Herb Strentz, retired dean of the Drake University School of Journalism. Another reader forwarded this column to him, and with his permission, here's what Herb had to say. He provides some good information:
Thanks for sending Dave's piece on interviewing in times of grief. It resonates with me.
For one thing, to me, asking whether reporters should interview grieving people is like asking whether they should interview public officials.
And of course it can be done poorly or offensively.
As I recall, Nick Lamberto, a veteran Register reporter from the old days, was known for his ability and concerns in getting through to people in trying situations, serving the people and readers well.
In the course of a few years, Herb Strentz as a young reporter must have interviewed, mostly by phone, several hundreds of people in grieving situations. The's because his newspaper, the Fresno Bee, with a circulation pf 100,000 or more, made it a point to write and run obituaries on everyone who died in the area. Everyone. So in the course of a workday, depending upon one's shift, you routinely wrote an obit or two. (There was a "dead board" with listing and information about the deceased and you were expected to go to that as time allowed.)
Christmas Day was an awful time to make such calls, but we'd do it and families did not mind. We'd call mostly to verify information received from a funeral home, but of course would get into other topics.
What Strentz learned:
• The death of a loved one or friend is always shocking regardless of cause or age.
• There would always be at least one person in the family who would take charge of handling such calls or accepted the call as non-invasive
• People really appreciated that their newspaper cared enough about them and the deceased to call and write the story. This was before paid obits became the rule, severing newspaper-community ties in many ways.
Before the onset of social media when it came to deaths by non-natural causes, the reporter might be the one to break the news of a death. That happened to me twice — veteran reporters and common sense were helpful then, of course, because routine obit tasks went out the window.
What bugs me most about death coverage today is not the interview so much as when the reporter suggests that Iowans respond to deaths in better, more helpful ways than other people might. That's what makes us special, kind of thing.
Thanks for this eye-opening information. I had no idea there were go-betweens that helped in such matters. That makes so much more sense. I do take issue with reporters who ask the families or vicitims, "How do you feel?" I've heard more than one person answer with "Well, how do you think I feel?" Good for them. I'm not saying that's an offensive, intrusive question, rather that it is a silly question.
As an editor and prior to that a reporter, I have always firmly believed that many people - even those experiencing tragedy - find purpose and clarity in telling their story. A respectful and sensitive reporter can absolutely play a role in helping them do so. As noted, it must be approached with the utmost care and consideration.
Dave, your essay is right on point - the reaction of victims is always an important part of any tragedy. And that certainly includes the family of the deceased perpetrator. At the same time, I think journalists have to be careful not to use this angle as a substitute (a means to ignore?) for the more important and much harder issue of gun violence and how to prevent it. I still believe journalists have the clout and the responsibility to hold those in power accountable. "Thoughts and prayers" won't end the violence that has become part of the school day across the nation and here in Iowa. Pressure from every one of us, including and especially the media, must continue.
Your explanation about interviews with members of a victims are excellent.
As I have followed coverage over the past several days, it has seemed to me that in Iowa the lead story was/is Perry and it’s aftermath. Were I still doing newscasts on radio, my leads would be the recent death of the school Principal and the impact upon the community. My news judgement is that this is a story that has much more impact upon residents of Iowa than political group meetings on a cold Monday night and several folks from out of state who were competing for the support of just over 100,000 participants. I learned in my early years in the news business that the best stories involve people who are known in the community and are respected.
I understand that a news budget is often set by the Associated Press and other National and statewide media. That was why the Iowa Republican Caucus led most radio and television newscasts.
My hope is that newscasters, reporters, and editors will think about their stories and consider the weight of various sets of information. Which facts have the most, and potentially lasting impact, upon listeners and readers. Over the past several days I would have gone with information about the lasting impact of the school shooting in Perry and the heroic efforts of the school Principal.
A very helpful explanation of a topic many people have typically misunderstood. As far as reducing gun violence, until we can get campaign finance reform so that the NRA doesn’t “buy” politicians and obligate them into taking ridiculous positions, I fear little beyond the worn-out “thoughts and prayers’ stuff will happen. The far right has shown it is not THAT deep into protecting the Constitution when it comes to other issues. They say and do what they they say and do because they are financially obligated - there’s always another campaign to finance.
This is great perspective on a horrible situation. Thank you for you taking the time to explain.
I am ambivalent about interviewing the family of victims after the victim has just died. It feels crass and intrusive. If the family wants total about their family member after they have had time to absorb the shock and rawness of the experience, that is another story. But moving in right after the death feels like violating the family a second ty
Dave, appreciate you taking time for this ‘extra’ article which helps a bystander, like me, understand how best to work through this type of situation. I have been fearing for this type of incident to happen in Iowa. Isn’t that sad and awful that we are now becoming numb and just waiting for the inevitable to happen? Thanks for the extra email.
I don’t care for the idea of calling the victims’ families or showing up at their front door. To me, that’s far too intrusive. I suppose using an intermediary is appropriate in these situations, though, but I agree that if declined, then leave them alone at least for a couple weeks. Besides, I think most people know how to contact their local media outlets if they truly want to do an interview or make statements.
Excellent column, Dave. I'm so glad you addressed this issue.
I interviewed many families who had endured tragedy during my years in broadcast journalism. As you mentioned, most of them were grateful to be given a voice. But I made sure to set the correct tone.
When done correctly, these kind of interviews are powerful -- for both the victims and the viewer/reader. It would be a shame to avoid them as standard operating procedure.
Dave, this is an excellent essay about the time and place for interviewing the victims or disasters--whether natural or man-made. You are absolutely correct about the various ways that reporters can approach families. And their voices help us relate to the human component that goes beyond a simple recitation of facts.
Agreed, Dave. This was well worth the extra column. It's worth lots of diligence and reflection on the part of journalists, too. Our school teaches an entire course on trauma-informed reporting. Over the years, I have learned a few practical, very valuable lessons from those who've lost loved ones.
It can be both compassionate and good journalism to ask open-ended questions about the life, rather than the death, of the person lost, e.g., "What do you want people to know about ______?"
Grieving loved ones often appreciate attention to detail. Did the person you're reporting on go by a middle name or nickname, rather than what might be listed on some official roster? Is there a favorite photo the family would like to have used, rather than something you found on Facebook or elsewhere?
And, while talking about loss -- for some people, at some point -- might be therapeutic, it is not the job of journalists to suggest such a thing in the pursuit of an interview. Reporters are not qualified to counsel survivors and should not presume to do so. It is their job to tell stories accurately and responsibly. Talking to grieving families is sometimes a part of that. That means sometimes it's not.
Dave, this is a great "second day" angle. It caused a lot of angst when I was in the news business. I remember during the 1979-80 Iran hostage-taking having to keep in regular touch with the mother of a Marine held in Iran. Only rarely did I tape record and air anything, but she never seemed to mind my calls. That doesn't mean I didn't feel nervous every time I dialed her number.
A second question besides whether victims' families should be interviewed, is what should the news organization air or print? Does it add to the story or is it pure emotional sadness that doesn't really inform the audience or does it share something abut the relationship to the victim. On the other side, I feel the same way about interviewing neighbors of suspects. "He was a good neighbor, never caused any problems," is not relevant to the crime.
Thanks for the follow-on column.
I received the following email from Herb Strentz, retired dean of the Drake University School of Journalism. Another reader forwarded this column to him, and with his permission, here's what Herb had to say. He provides some good information:
Thanks for sending Dave's piece on interviewing in times of grief. It resonates with me.
For one thing, to me, asking whether reporters should interview grieving people is like asking whether they should interview public officials.
And of course it can be done poorly or offensively.
As I recall, Nick Lamberto, a veteran Register reporter from the old days, was known for his ability and concerns in getting through to people in trying situations, serving the people and readers well.
In the course of a few years, Herb Strentz as a young reporter must have interviewed, mostly by phone, several hundreds of people in grieving situations. The's because his newspaper, the Fresno Bee, with a circulation pf 100,000 or more, made it a point to write and run obituaries on everyone who died in the area. Everyone. So in the course of a workday, depending upon one's shift, you routinely wrote an obit or two. (There was a "dead board" with listing and information about the deceased and you were expected to go to that as time allowed.)
Christmas Day was an awful time to make such calls, but we'd do it and families did not mind. We'd call mostly to verify information received from a funeral home, but of course would get into other topics.
What Strentz learned:
• The death of a loved one or friend is always shocking regardless of cause or age.
• There would always be at least one person in the family who would take charge of handling such calls or accepted the call as non-invasive
• People really appreciated that their newspaper cared enough about them and the deceased to call and write the story. This was before paid obits became the rule, severing newspaper-community ties in many ways.
Before the onset of social media when it came to deaths by non-natural causes, the reporter might be the one to break the news of a death. That happened to me twice — veteran reporters and common sense were helpful then, of course, because routine obit tasks went out the window.
What bugs me most about death coverage today is not the interview so much as when the reporter suggests that Iowans respond to deaths in better, more helpful ways than other people might. That's what makes us special, kind of thing.
Herb
Well said!
Thanks for this eye-opening information. I had no idea there were go-betweens that helped in such matters. That makes so much more sense. I do take issue with reporters who ask the families or vicitims, "How do you feel?" I've heard more than one person answer with "Well, how do you think I feel?" Good for them. I'm not saying that's an offensive, intrusive question, rather that it is a silly question.
Great column Dave.
As an editor and prior to that a reporter, I have always firmly believed that many people - even those experiencing tragedy - find purpose and clarity in telling their story. A respectful and sensitive reporter can absolutely play a role in helping them do so. As noted, it must be approached with the utmost care and consideration.
Dave, your essay is right on point - the reaction of victims is always an important part of any tragedy. And that certainly includes the family of the deceased perpetrator. At the same time, I think journalists have to be careful not to use this angle as a substitute (a means to ignore?) for the more important and much harder issue of gun violence and how to prevent it. I still believe journalists have the clout and the responsibility to hold those in power accountable. "Thoughts and prayers" won't end the violence that has become part of the school day across the nation and here in Iowa. Pressure from every one of us, including and especially the media, must continue.
Your explanation about interviews with members of a victims are excellent.
As I have followed coverage over the past several days, it has seemed to me that in Iowa the lead story was/is Perry and it’s aftermath. Were I still doing newscasts on radio, my leads would be the recent death of the school Principal and the impact upon the community. My news judgement is that this is a story that has much more impact upon residents of Iowa than political group meetings on a cold Monday night and several folks from out of state who were competing for the support of just over 100,000 participants. I learned in my early years in the news business that the best stories involve people who are known in the community and are respected.
I understand that a news budget is often set by the Associated Press and other National and statewide media. That was why the Iowa Republican Caucus led most radio and television newscasts.
My hope is that newscasters, reporters, and editors will think about their stories and consider the weight of various sets of information. Which facts have the most, and potentially lasting impact, upon listeners and readers. Over the past several days I would have gone with information about the lasting impact of the school shooting in Perry and the heroic efforts of the school Principal.