Wrote a letter about it, wanna read it here it go,,,
Greetings Mr. Weinstein:
I trust this communiqué finds you well.
I came across your post from a good friend of mine who too is in the
business of communication. Upon reflection, when I first saw the photo, I
was in complete shock. The reasons for said shock were obvious; to see a
dead child, who's death has sparked a national debate, left me speechless.
Examining the upper third, I did notice that it was from MS NBC's Tamron
Hall. I want to believe this was not done with intent, but an honest misstep of
judgment on the part of the photog in the courtroom and the ENG technician in
the live truck. Things like this happen in our market driven media based
culture. I'm not attempting to cosign on this as best practice; but
instead understanding that mistakes do happen.
This brings me to your conscious decision to
re-present this over the web. I don't think you single handedly did this with
any type of malicious intent. This just reinforces the premise that one
cannot un-ring a bell nor call a bullet back to the chamber once fired.
As I appreciate your attempt to share what you feel is newsworthy, and I
do accept your news judgment, I feel respectfully that the methods, in this
case at lease may need to be examined. Unequivocally, this case is
shocking, bringing about strong emotional arousal. Academically, my
training points me to studies that link emotional arousal to sensationalism.
In my honest opinion, sensationalism has
infected what I like to believe is journalism. I think it has "gone
viral" in our newsrooms, our live trucks, to now our social media
platforms. This case, as I am sure you are aware has all the trappings of
being a categorically sensationalized news case, which I hope to teach about in
a case of best practices for new journalists. What gives me reason for
pause in this case is your decision to attach this photo. The first
obligation journalists have, according to the Society of Professional
Journalist code of ethics is to seek the truth and report it. The second
obligation is to minimize harm. Specifically it says, "— Be
sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by
tragedy or grief." Additionally it says, "— Recognize that
gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of
the news is not a license for arrogance."
I will not begin to entertain the question
of your degree of hubris for the simple fact that I don't know you.
I am sure you are well intentioned and acted in a manner you believed was
the right and just thing to do. I want to say that I am beyond outraged
regarding this incident. As I am a father of a son; I can promise
you that if any harm as egregious as this were to come to him, my reactions as
a parent would not be as controlled as they are in this message to
you or as Trayvon Martin's parents. I share your passion for
social justice as without question, this case
has parallels to Emmett Till and countless and nameless others who
were recklessly dispatched by our culture of violence.
At this time, I think what we have to do,
what we must commit ourselves to doing is watchful observation. I have my
opinions and I have placed them in social media, but at the end of the day,
court cases cannot be tried in the press nor the courts of public opinion.
I think your photo may have done more harm than good. I
was hurt. I was angered. Does this photo help to ease tensions or magnify them?
No comments:
Post a Comment