Laws, Privacy and News Media

[Dancing David]

Recently there was a tragedy in the shootings at Northern Illinois University.

It comes very close to myself. The week before my wife and I had talked to the sister of the shooter (my wife and she went to grad schools together).

The sister was out of town when the story hit the media and for some reason the person house sitting at her house was awoken by some national news reporter at 3:00am trying to interview the sister.

The sister had put a large note on her door asking for privacy. So some reporters stand on her porch and did stories from the porch.

Some of her personal life has now been spread around the nation, and that has ramifications in our closed minded and narrow society where personal details of her life may now be revealed to bigoted people.

The media has also interviewed family members who have disassociated from her and her brother for a very long time.

This is probably all legal, but what happened to privacy of the individual?

(Of course now I am exploiting the situation.)

 

[sugarb]

I'm sorry this is happening to your wife's friend. She has more than enough to deal with right now without reporters hounding her. Unfortunately, I feel this is the result of a society that consumes tabloid news with an almost insatiable hunger. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as individual privacy anymore, in practice...not when people demand a "right to know" about things they really don't have a right to know anything about. At times it seems as though the entire family of people who do terrible things gets punished in our quest for the answers to "why?". The sad part is, even they can't give us the answers we're looking for, but we'll sure tear them apart trying, won't we? Tragedies almost always turn into double tragedies in that regard...we just don't see much reporting on the second part.

 

[fuelair]

Recently there was a tragedy in the shootings at Northern Illinois University.

It comes very close to myself. The week before my wife and I had talked to the sister of the shooter (my wife and she went to grad schools together).

The sister was out of town when the story hit the media and for some reason the person house sitting at her house was awoken by some national news reporter at 3:00am trying to interview the sister.

The sister had put a large note on her door asking for privacy. So some reporters stand on her porch and did stories from the porch.

Some of her personal life has now been spread around the nation, and that has ramifications in our closed minded and narrow society where personal details of her life may now be revealed to bigoted people.

The media has also interviewed family members who have disassociated from her and her brother for a very long time.

This is probably all legal, but what happened to privacy of the individual?

(Of course now I am exploiting the situation.)

I am (very slightly right now) media involved and I firmly believe how they operate after tragedies has alway borne a direct relation to lower level slime. There is zero need for the public to know how the sister or parents feel about the situation. The public needs only Who, Where, When, How, and, if known, Why. Unless there is really good reason to think the sister knows and is hiding one of those, she is not needed for the story and the slime level of journalism gets a bit deeper.

 

[fuelair]

I'm sorry this is happening to your wife's friend. She has more than enough to deal with right now without reporters hounding her. Unfortunately, I feel this is the result of a society that consumes tabloid news with an almost insatiable hunger. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as individual privacy anymore, in practice...not when people demand a "right to know" about things they really don't have a right to know anything about. At times it seems as though the entire family of people who do terrible things gets punished in our quest for the answers to "why?". The sad part is, even they can't give us the answers we're looking for, but we'll sure tear them apart trying, won't we? Tragedies almost always turn into double tragedies in that regard...we just don't see much reporting on the second part.

Actually, people do not really demand to know. They respond to it if given it, but I have never heard anyone in s supermarket line saying "Boy I wish I knew why Kelly Buple is gaining so much weight lately" Rather "Oh, look, Kelly Buple is getting fat it says here !".. There is a difference between go for it if it is provided and asking for it. The media acts on what they can sell a lot of, not what the audience asks for. Almost no one would be asking for it if it wasn't there. They might miss it, but...... A lot of Pseudo celebs would too.

 

[sugarb]

Actually, people do not really demand to know. They respond to it if given it, but I have never heard anyone in s supermarket line saying "Boy I wish I knew why Kelly Buple is gaining so much weight lately" Rather "Oh, look, Kelly Buple is getting fat it says here !".. There is a difference between go for it if it is provided and asking for it. The media acts on what they can sell a lot of, not what the audience asks for. Almost no one would be asking for it if it wasn't there. They might miss it, but...... A lot of Pseudo celebs would too.

You're probably right. It just seems to me that, unless Kelly Buple (lol, who is Kelly Buple?) was what people wanted to read about, no one would print it. Forgive my phrasing. In all honesty, I'm not really qualified to comment on why the news media focuses on certain things. I just assume they do so because it sells, thus my choice of the word "demand".

Apologies for my poor choice in wording.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Time to turn on the sprinkler.

I don't see how a reporter can live with themselves when they take an assignment to harass a person after a terrible tragedy such as this one. You have to really be a scumbag to think it's OK to knock on a door at 3am because the person inside will likely be taken off guard and may open the door. I might have accidentally let my dogs get past me, even if it meant the guy might sue or the dogs had to be quarantined a few days. I think you might get away with it claiming fear and self defense.

-

I felt so sad for the one couple whose only child was among the dead. This is one of those tragedies that probably resulted from delusions and mental illness. You can't see the shooter as evil unless it turns out to be some other reason. It's so sad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Apologies for my poor choice in wording.

"Demand" can refer to "supply and demand". That's what I interpreted your post saying. As such it is the correct word. There is that other meaning of demand which came first to fuelair's mind. I might have used the word, 'demand', myself, without thinking of the definition, "insisting".

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

There is something to be said for the public buying the news commodity as it is. I don't think that excuses the disrespect of reporters for people's privacy and grief. If a reporter has come to the conclusion getting a story excuses such behavior, that would be a disgustingly selfish person. The employer rewarding that behavior is just as disgusting.

 

[sugarb]

"Demand" can refer to "supply and demand". That's what I interpreted your post saying. As such it is the correct word. There is that other meaning of demand which came first to fuelair's mind. I might have used the word, 'demand', myself, without thinking of the definition, "insisting".

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

There is something to be said for the public buying the news commodity as it is. I don't think that excuses the disrespect of reporters for people's privacy and grief. If a reporter has come to the conclusion getting a story excuses such behavior, that would be a disgustingly selfish person. The employer rewarding that behavior is just as disgusting.

Thank you for the welcome I, too, wonder how some reporters can live with themselves at times.

 

[fuelair]

You're probably right. It just seems to me that, unless Kelly Buple (lol, who is Kelly Buple?) was what people wanted to read about, no one would print it. Forgive my phrasing. In all honesty, I'm not really qualified to comment on why the news media focuses on certain things. I just assume they do so because it sells, thus my choice of the word "demand".

Apologies for my poor choice in wording.

Relax, we do not tend to get hyper in this kind of thread. No apologies needed - even if you had (poor wording). There is no Kelly Buple. Though at various times it could have been several different celebs. Just an example.
You are quite correct that they print about what people want to read: and people want to think life is really wild and exciting in the next town or next state (Thus "Vampire frog's took their baby!! or "Commies invade N. Pasadena Mayor's office. Where was Schwarzeneger ?!!) Technically harmless crap for the activity deprived - but unfortunately it feeds anti-science. But to the main point. If it wasn't there, the primary audience would mostly not switch to other reading, they would just stop reading. This, by the by, is purely based on anecdote and personal observation of readers of this stuff. I know of no studies that would prove or disprove my point. (Truth in advertising moment). Anyway, welcome in, don't apologise too much (the mods might think you're soft - never let'em see you blink!!) and have a great time. It's a great place for fun!!

 

[sugarb]

Relax, we do not tend to get hyper in this kind of thread. No apologies needed - even if you had (poor wording). There is no Kelly Buple. Though at various times it could have been several different celebs. Just an example.
You are quite correct that they print about what people want to read: and people want to think life is really wild and exciting in the next town or next state (Thus "Vampire frog's took their baby!! or "Commies invade N. Pasadena Mayor's office. Where was Schwarzeneger ?!!) Technically harmless crap for the activity deprived - but unfortunately it feeds anti-science. But to the main point. If it wasn't there, the primary audience would mostly not switch to other reading, they would just stop reading. This, by the by, is purely based on anecdote and personal observation of readers of this stuff. I know of no studies that would prove or disprove my point. (Truth in advertising moment). Anyway, welcome in, don't apologise too much (the mods might think you're soft - never let'em see you blink!!) and have a great time. It's a great place for fun!!

Thank you, too, for the welcome. Sorry for saying I'm sorry too much (haha)

 

[Dancing David]

Thank you, too, for the welcome. Sorry for saying I'm sorry too much (haha)

I,m sorry I haven't welcomed you to the forum yet.



Welcome!

 

[sugarb]

I,m sorry I haven't welcomed you to the forum yet.



Welcome!

thank you