As a talk show host coach, I urge my clients to be gentle with their guess in situations where they are grieving, recovering from a loss or illness, have been victims of a crime and so on. Of course as you know, not all talk show hosts follow this advice because they think it make a better show to expose the raw feelings involved. And in some cases station management may dictate a hard edged approach in the belief that it improves ratings. Here is an article from http://www.theeaglepost.us discussing how journalists should deal with people they interview. I think it has worthwhile pointers for those of us in talk show positions:
Journalists should be honest, but considerate
Published:
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM CDT
TESSA DUVALL
As a journalist, it is my job to gather and report information in a fair, impartial way. We tell both sides of the story to the best of our ability.
Sometimes, doing this job requires asking hard questions of people who are in difficult situations. You know they don’t want to talk about it, but still, you have to ask. It’s not always an easy thing to do.
Part of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says journalists should minimize harm.
“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect,” according to the code.
When interviewing sources, journalists should put themselves in their shoes and be respectful. Facts we seek should be relevant to the story. Some details enrich stories and paint a picture, while others just embarrass or hurt sources.
This recently became more evident to me when speaking with a friend whose father stood trial for murder.
The situation was already very difficult for my friend and his family, but things were made even worse by the local media’s coverage of the case. Graphic details of the murder were described, like the exact entry point of every shot in the body, the mutilation the shots caused to the body and gruesome details of crime scene photos that I won’t go into.
He couldn’t understand why they would report things like that, and after reading the story, I didn’t understand either. The details, in my opinion, didn’t enhance the story and just made me cringe.
There’s a difference between properly reporting a story and dragging people through the mud. Clearly, this reporter just wanted to embellish his story.
If the details help to make a situation clear to the reader, or they explain the brutality or depravity of a case, then it may be necessary to explain. But if it doesn’t, just leave them out. It’s not doing anyone any favors.
“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,” the code states.
Does the suspect’s family want to relive those details? No. Does the victim’s family want to relive those details? Definitely not. Doesn’t the public want those tough-to-stomach details? My guess is no.
The code does not say to do no harm. To do that would be impossible. Families close to the situation will be impacted by any story, but the public still has a right to know. The job of the journalist is to balance the right to know against intentional harm to the families.
Journalists exist to seek truth and report it. Even if the awful details are true, journalists should consider their importance before reporting them. Stories we write affect real-life people with real-life emotions and concerns. What good does it serve the public interest to turn a news story into a real-life horror story?
(Tessa Duvall is the summer staff writer for The Eagle Post. She can be reached at 270-887-3205 (office) or 270-535-4379 (cell) or tduvall@theeaglepost.us.)
Journalists should be honest, but considerate
Published:
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM CDT
TESSA DUVALL
As a journalist, it is my job to gather and report information in a fair, impartial way. We tell both sides of the story to the best of our ability.
Sometimes, doing this job requires asking hard questions of people who are in difficult situations. You know they don’t want to talk about it, but still, you have to ask. It’s not always an easy thing to do.
Part of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says journalists should minimize harm.
“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect,” according to the code.
When interviewing sources, journalists should put themselves in their shoes and be respectful. Facts we seek should be relevant to the story. Some details enrich stories and paint a picture, while others just embarrass or hurt sources.
This recently became more evident to me when speaking with a friend whose father stood trial for murder.
The situation was already very difficult for my friend and his family, but things were made even worse by the local media’s coverage of the case. Graphic details of the murder were described, like the exact entry point of every shot in the body, the mutilation the shots caused to the body and gruesome details of crime scene photos that I won’t go into.
He couldn’t understand why they would report things like that, and after reading the story, I didn’t understand either. The details, in my opinion, didn’t enhance the story and just made me cringe.
There’s a difference between properly reporting a story and dragging people through the mud. Clearly, this reporter just wanted to embellish his story.
If the details help to make a situation clear to the reader, or they explain the brutality or depravity of a case, then it may be necessary to explain. But if it doesn’t, just leave them out. It’s not doing anyone any favors.
“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,” the code states.
Does the suspect’s family want to relive those details? No. Does the victim’s family want to relive those details? Definitely not. Doesn’t the public want those tough-to-stomach details? My guess is no.
The code does not say to do no harm. To do that would be impossible. Families close to the situation will be impacted by any story, but the public still has a right to know. The job of the journalist is to balance the right to know against intentional harm to the families.
Journalists exist to seek truth and report it. Even if the awful details are true, journalists should consider their importance before reporting them. Stories we write affect real-life people with real-life emotions and concerns. What good does it serve the public interest to turn a news story into a real-life horror story?
(Tessa Duvall is the summer staff writer for The Eagle Post. She can be reached at 270-887-3205 (office) or 270-535-4379 (cell) or tduvall@theeaglepost.us.)
Journalists should be honest, but considerate
Published:
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM CDT
TESSA DUVALL
As a journalist, it is my job to gather and report information in a fair, impartial way. We tell both sides of the story to the best of our ability.
Sometimes, doing this job requires asking hard questions of people who are in difficult situations. You know they don’t want to talk about it, but still, you have to ask. It’s not always an easy thing to do.
Part of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says journalists should minimize harm.
“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect,” according to the code.
When interviewing sources, journalists should put themselves in their shoes and be respectful. Facts we seek should be relevant to the story. Some details enrich stories and paint a picture, while others just embarrass or hurt sources.
This recently became more evident to me when speaking with a friend whose father stood trial for murder.
The situation was already very difficult for my friend and his family, but things were made even worse by the local media’s coverage of the case. Graphic details of the murder were described, like the exact entry point of every shot in the body, the mutilation the shots caused to the body and gruesome details of crime scene photos that I won’t go into.
He couldn’t understand why they would report things like that, and after reading the story, I didn’t understand either. The details, in my opinion, didn’t enhance the story and just made me cringe.
There’s a difference between properly reporting a story and dragging people through the mud. Clearly, this reporter just wanted to embellish his story.
If the details help to make a situation clear to the reader, or they explain the brutality or depravity of a case, then it may be necessary to explain. But if it doesn’t, just leave them out. It’s not doing anyone any favors.
“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,” the code states.
Does the suspect’s family want to relive those details? No. Does the victim’s family want to relive those details? Definitely not. Doesn’t the public want those tough-to-stomach details? My guess is no.
The code does not say to do no harm. To do that would be impossible. Families close to the situation will be impacted by any story, but the public still has a right to know. The job of the journalist is to balance the right to know against intentional harm to the families.
Journalists exist to seek truth and report it. Even if the awful details are true, journalists should consider their importance before reporting them. Stories we write affect real-life people with real-life emotions and concerns. What good does it serve the public interest to turn a news story into a real-life horror story?
(Tessa Duvall is the summer staff writer for The Eagle Post. She can be reached at 270-887-3205 (office) or 270-535-4379 (cell) or tduvall@theeaglepost.us.)
Journalists should be honest, but considerate
Published:
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM CDT
TESSA DUVALL
As a journalist, it is my job to gather and report information in a fair, impartial way. We tell both sides of the story to the best of our ability.
Sometimes, doing this job requires asking hard questions of people who are in difficult situations. You know they don’t want to talk about it, but still, you have to ask. It’s not always an easy thing to do.
Part of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says journalists should minimize harm.
“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect,” according to the code.
When interviewing sources, journalists should put themselves in their shoes and be respectful. Facts we seek should be relevant to the story. Some details enrich stories and paint a picture, while others just embarrass or hurt sources.
This recently became more evident to me when speaking with a friend whose father stood trial for murder.
The situation was already very difficult for my friend and his family, but things were made even worse by the local media’s coverage of the case. Graphic details of the murder were described, like the exact entry point of every shot in the body, the mutilation the shots caused to the body and gruesome details of crime scene photos that I won’t go into.
He couldn’t understand why they would report things like that, and after reading the story, I didn’t understand either. The details, in my opinion, didn’t enhance the story and just made me cringe.
There’s a difference between properly reporting a story and dragging people through the mud. Clearly, this reporter just wanted to embellish his story.
If the details help to make a situation clear to the reader, or they explain the brutality or depravity of a case, then it may be necessary to explain. But if it doesn’t, just leave them out. It’s not doing anyone any favors.
“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,” the code states.
Does the suspect’s family want to relive those details? No. Does the victim’s family want to relive those details? Definitely not. Doesn’t the public want those tough-to-stomach details? My guess is no.
The code does not say to do no harm. To do that would be impossible. Families close to the situation will be impacted by any story, but the public still has a right to know. The job of the journalist is to balance the right to know against intentional harm to the families.
Journalists exist to seek truth and report it. Even if the awful details are true, journalists should consider their importance before reporting them. Stories we write affect real-life people with real-life emotions and concerns. What good does it serve the public interest to turn a news story into a real-life horror story?
(Tessa Duvall is the summer staff writer for The Eagle Post. She can be reached at 270-887-3205 (office) or 270-535-4379 (cell) or tduvall@theeaglepost.us.)
If you are interested in getting even more tips regarding talk show host performance, go to: http://conductknockoutbroadcastinterviews.com/ where you can sign up for: REE TO TALK SHOW HOSTS
Special Report: 10 Proven Ways To Increase Your Audience Size In 30 Days … At Zero Cost!
And receive periodic “Insider Tips For Talk Show Hosts” … loaded with techniques you can use to improve your show and make more money.
Photo courtesy of joeclark.org
