300 Word Response/Summary? to the Scenario
The scenario that I had read was about a Journalist who had to sit down with a family of a Navy electronics technician, Kelly Robert Quick.
He had been unaccounted for when two Iraqi missiles hit the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf on May 17, 1987.
He writes about how he believes that barging into peoples privacy during a time like that is wrong, and the public doesn't have a right to know about how the family is dealing with the news.
Personally I agree with what he is saying, and I think that the public doesn't really care about the family, they just want a good story whether it's sad or happy.
Initially when the journalist talked to the father of Kelly Quick, when he saw that he had been tired, sobbing and had already given several interviews to other stations and newspapers, he left giving his blessing.
His editors reaction was very upset, by that how it wasn't his job to be concerned with what the sources want, and that it's only to get the story. To not give advance warning, to take them by surprise.
He had to go back to the father's house and try to get as much information from them as possible, even after he had already tried earlier.
The father ends up telling the story that he had been telling for the past few days. I don't really see how this could've been different than any other paper, but I guess they just wanted the story anyway.
When another reporter came into the house, when he saw one reporter in the house, he assumed that he could be there as well.
The reporter ended up ignoring the family inside and went around the house looking around, took a photo, asked the family if he could take it and then left.
He had received a call on the phone asking if he had enough yet. When he asked if he could just come in and not tie up the phone lines, he was told that it didn't matter because their son had died.
The press knew before the family that their son had died, and he had to wait for their reaction when the "officers in white uniforms" come.
What should've been done and what was done
The reporter ended up resigning from his job shortly after what had taken place there. I personally think he should've told other news stations and people about what happens.
I don't think it's morally okay for someone to barge in and ask people all about their personal problems involving this issue.
The idea that the public deserves to know how a family reacts to a tragedy is ridiculous, if anything it is a privilege that has to be earned by peoples trust in the news station, reporter, or whomever tries to get the interview.
I believe that when a person is calm and collected, then they should be able to be requested for an interview.
The idea of profiting from someone's loss is sickening.
The pros of interviewing people during their grief is that they get tons of popularity, and it makes for a much better story.
The negatives are that the press may seem cruel and unkind to people, and that they might not even get a good story from them and just get the same story as everybody else in the room.
