cpoxon 0 #1 March 22, 2004 Most of us are aware of how badly the media represent us when something goes wrong and how'd they'd rather sensationalise rather than get the facts straight. Skydiving is still a good horrorstory for the press due to the crazyness of "plunging" thousands of feet from a perfectly good aircrat, despite the fact that as many, if not more people, die or are killed whilst scuba diving, horse riding, skiing, playing golf (take your pick). This is amplified when the deceased is related to someone in the public eye (however minor). I'm sure many of us were not best pleased with the way the press has dealt with the recent fatality in Australia (although some, including myself, have perpetrated reports in an effort to gain insight and diseminate pertinent information), so it was refreshing to read this article and find that there are some members of the press who find this style of reporting as abhorent as we do. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1174754,00.html Quote Comment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long lenses, hard hearts Roy Greenslade finds no justification for certain papers' gross intrusion into the privacy of Clare Barnes's grieving family Monday March 22, 2004 The Guardian Several newspapers last week displayed a lack of taste and discretion which was, frankly, ghoulish and surely contravened two clauses of the editors' code of practice. On two separate occasions they carried pictures of a couple who were grieving over the loss of their daughter, one of the greatest tragedies any parent can suffer. The first was bad enough; the second was an intolerable intrusion, relying on a long-lens picture taken by a sneak photographer. When news broke that the daughter of the foreign office minister, Denis MacShane, and the newsreader, Carol Barnes, had died in a skydiving accident, they issued a dignified, if heartbreaking, statement. They then flew to Australia where Clare, who was 24, had fallen to her death when her parachute failed to open. The first intrusion occurred at Melbourne airport when they arrived in a state of obvious distress, yet the Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph carried large pictures of them. The Sun reported that "tears welled" in Barnes's eyes. What it did not say is that this occurred when one reporter tried to question the couple. The Mail reported that MacShane made no comment, but I understand he retorted: "What moral universe are you from?" He might well have asked that again later in the week when the Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Standard and the Daily Telegraph published large pictures of MacShane, Barnes, her son James, and their daughter's boyfriend visiting the field where Clare's body had been recovered. Taken from a considerable distance, the picture showed what should have been a private ceremony of shared grief. If ever there was a time for discretion, this was it, yet photographers and reporters observed it all, recounting intimate details. What justification was there for this gross intrusion? Clause 5 of the editors' code of practice states that in such cases "inquiries must be carried out and approaches made with sympathy and discretion", adding: "Publication must be handled sensitively". This should be read in conjunction with clause 3 which outlaws the use of long-lens photography to take pictures of people in places, public or private, where they might reasonably expect privacy. Well, those four people were surely expecting privacy. Could editors not see that? Where was the public interest? The morally superior Telegraph couldn't help. Despite being in his office, the editor, Martin Newland, requested his secretary to say he was "unavailable for comment". Here, here. BSBDSkydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #2 March 22, 2004 God bless the Guardian! Was it them who carried just about the only well written story on Stephen Hilder? GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBKid 0 #3 March 22, 2004 The thing that really bugs me whenever there's a report of a fatality is that they mention parachutes "failing to open" (no need to go into this), and then a "10/11/14,000 ft plummet to their death". I know a grieving family is unlikely to read any such reports, but I just get annoyed at the implication that people suffer over a minute of abject terror knowing that they're going to die. The ten second drop when you get a reserve total is still scary enough. It's probably only me that this bugs, but what can I do... Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #4 March 22, 2004 even that is not true.. I presumme I'm way to busy trying to fix it to even "notice" impact... The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendragon 1 #5 March 23, 2004 QuoteGod bless the Guardian! Was it them who carried just about the only well written story on Stephen Hilder? Gus It was the Observer: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1053330,00.html I thought it was pretty good too - I suppose it was written by a fellow skydiver though! Worth a read by anyone that hasn't already...-- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #6 March 23, 2004 Tragic stories always make better news than straight forward ones. Combine a skydiving accident with a celebrity parent or two and you have a story which will run for a couple of days. The details are very rarely right but since when does that matter to a newspaper? Retractions or clarifications are rare unless forced upon the papers and articles written with with the benefit of thorough research and time are rarer still. Having read the article from The Guardian I wrote to the Daily Telegraph letters page to ask them how they could justify their reports and pictures when they seem to be clearly against press complaints authority guidlines. Funnilly enough as yet I have heard nothing from them. Lets face it newspaper reports are normally rushed off to beat deadlines, they are ethemeral, they are written to grab attention and they are not written with any consideration for feelings of the subjects. They are also best taken with a pinch of salt and a healthy regard for the 'politics' behind the paper and the journalist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
