Adventure 16: The final post

As cheesy and cliche as it is, I want to use this last blog post as an opportunity to reflect on my capstone experience this semester.

Understandably so, I was a little nervous about what this semester would entail. Don't get me wrong, I was certainly excited. I had only heard good things from capstone vets that it's an incredible experience, the lecture discussions are lively and engaging, the work is like nothing we've done before. But I couldn't help but feel a little intimidated.

Upon starting doing work for our individual teams, I was really looking forward to working with my group and everyone involved. I had this idea in my head of what it would be like, keeping an open-mind and staying flexible. When we started getting assigned individual assignments, I couldn't help but feel sad that I wasn't able to work directly with my group mates. We were all busy trying to do what was asked of us, which left little time or room to interact and work with one another. We decided to change things up so we could be in more direct contact with each other, and that certainly helped.

While I enjoyed having the opportunity to work with programs and software I was unfamiliar with, and pushing myself to tackle the assignments we were given, I took away much more than sharpening and developing those skills from this whole experience.

I learned the importance of communication amongst all members of a team; the leader, the supervisor, the ones cranking out the work. Proper communication ensures that everyone is on the same page. It establishes trust.

I learned to speak up when something doesn't seem right. I've always had a hard time doing so. I'm pretty shy by nature, and I always fear that I'll sound stupid or that I'll bother the person I'm confronting. But after multiple experiences of feeling like something wasn't going right, or that I wasn't being treated fairly, I knew I had to stand up for myself. I knew nothing was going to change if I didn't, and that no one could voice my opinion for me.

I learned what it means to be a team player. It means having someone's back when they're struggling. It means making sure everyone is in the loop. It means doing whatever you have to do to ensure that things function smoothly, whether that means helping someone with their assignment, or sending group texts at all hours of the morning/night.

I learned about respect. I found that once my group members and I started working together more frequently and forming a tighter bond, our respect for one another grew. We respected each other's opinions, their ideas, the work they were doing. I learned about respecting myself in the sense that I won't let anyone make me feel inferior or take advantage of my shy and reserved nature. I learned that while it's important to show respect to your higher-ups, the dynamic of the team simply cannot function at its best if the respect isn't reciprocated.

I'm pleased with my capstone experience. All I wanted from it was to walk away having learned something and having developed and sharpened my skills, and I did. I had the opportunity to work with students that I hadn't worked closely with before. I'm walking away from my capstone feeling excited to see how I can put what I learned to use.

An Example of What Not To Do When Covering Suicide

When reading this article from the Business Standard, I could hardly make it past the first sentence, let alone the headline, without feeling disgusted. However, I wanted to write about this article as to use it as an example of what not to do when covering suicide.

The article began by explaining that a young woman, mother of two, took her life by jumping into a well with her two young children. Shortly after, her husband also took his life.

It continues on to explain that the husband and wife had had a verbal altercation on Thursday, prompting the wife to take her and her 18-month old and 6-month-old with her as she ended her life.

It went on to include a quote from a police officer about the details of the incident, as well as how the bodies were dealt with. It was a short article, but it nonetheless screamed volumes about how best not to cover suicide.

Based on my research and insight from various sources on covering suicide, there is no real benefit in including speculations as to why someone may have taken their life. We will never really know, and drawing conclusions and making assumptions does nothing for the grieving and healing process for those who’s loved ones were lost. Blaming it on a verbal altercation between the husband and wife is a blatant assumption, and can only distract family and friends from mourning their loss and appreciating the life and in turn puts the focus on anger and obtaining justice.

It’s also a red flag to me that this journalist included a quote from a police office. While it might be important to get information from a first responder as far as understanding the gist of the situation, it is not their place to speculate and make statements about why this tragedy may have occurred. They are experts of the law, but they are not experts on mental illness and what may lead someone to take their life (at least, I can safely and confidently assume.)

This article also included some details that while they weren’t directly graphic, they definitely painted a picture in my head as I read it, and it wasn't pretty. It’s quite the tragedy that this woman took her two young children with her as she decided to end her life; that is certainly newsworthy. But I felt uncomfortable about them including the names of the children. You wouldn’t normally include the name of young children unless given specific permission to do so, and I don’t think it was necessary. Nor do I think it was necessary to include that, “the bodies were pulled out from the well last night and handed over to the family members,” because no one needs that visual, and saying that they were “handed over” to family members makes it sound like they weren’t even human beings; they were garbage being tossed around.

I don’t want to believe that this is considered a respectable piece of journalism, or that it was purposefully published to serve as an example of how not to cover suicide in the media. I don’t think this article did these people justice, and it painted their deaths in such a glamorized and entertainment-like way that dehumanizes them. The most important part about writing on suicide is remembering that this was a person. A person who had emotions, who had loved ones, who lived. It’s important to focus on these aspects of the story as opposed to narrowly discussing the details of the event itself.

Covering Violence: Writing the Trauma Story

Our reading from this week in "Covering Violence" focused on the process of writing a trauma story. While I've been getting more and more comfortable with the the principles of covering trauma, I was still uneasy about how to actually go about writing the story itself.

There were a handful of important take-aways from this chapter, but there were two that I wanted to reflect on specifically because I think they're very much related: accuracy and details.

Storie on trauma are difficult to cover in the first place- mentally, emotionally, sometimes even physically- but even more damage can be done if the details of the event aren't completely accurate. It paints a different picture from what actually occurred and can glamorize things in a way that is completely insensitive to those impacted by the trauma. Something as seemingly minute as misspelling someone's name, an inaccurate description of their job or career, or the chronology of the event can be incredibly harmful to those grieving from the event.

Accuracy is important in any, in every news story rather, but even more so when emotions are at the peak of devastation and heart ache. As a journalist, it is our job to be accurate, to tell the story as it happened, to represent the event and the people involved in the most sensitive and respectable manner.

But what about when was is accurate is too graphic and painful to include? How can we go about telling the story in the most accurate way if we have to be mindful of the harm the details of the event can do? The chapter suggested that, "Sometimes, sadly, it is impossible not to report critical details details of a crime without adding to the grief of families of friends. Journalists often must be the bearers of bad news, like it or not," (Simpson and Cote, 124).

It's a fine line to walk in regard to what kind of information is important in the coverage of a traumatic event and what kind of information will provoke horror or devastation. A lot of it is about personal judgment and reflection: Is this really necessary? What good does this information do for this story? I think as journalists, we need to remember that these stories are about people, and that we are people, and to think about the purpose of the information that is included and how it will contribute to the narrative of the story.

Adventure Fifteen: Bad things happen to good people

I came across an article today from EliteDaily.com titled, "Bad Things Don't Happen To Good People, Bad Things Create Good People."

Wow, way to give it all away right away. Regardless, I decided to skim through the article to see what it had to offer.

It began with a heart-warming introduction about what makes a person good, how experiences in life shapes people, yadda yadda yadda. It continued with a list of reasons why/how bad things create good people and ended with the cliche, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" quote. I absolutely lost it.

Yes, I believe that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Yes, I can appreciate the optimistic approach this author had when writing this piece, because I like to think of myself as an optimistic person. But what I could not get on board with was the complete and total disregard for the fact that when bad things happen, people are impacted. And it's tough. I want to take a look at what the author had to say about when bad things happen, and fill in the holes they neglected to acknowledge.

"Accidents don't deter good people; they reinvent them."
I'm not even entirely sure what the author meant by "accidents" or how they would define them. It makes it difficult to analyze this assertion, but I digress.

"Rejection doesn't make them hard and cold; it makes them appreciative and grateful."
I've faced my fair share of rejection; academically, romantically, socially, professionally-- and I'm sure many people can relate. We all face rejection at some point in some regard. And I would be incredibly surprised to meet someone who didn't feel a little bitter after the fact. Of course it sucks. It's discouraging, it feels like a personal jab, and it takes a toll on confidence. The author continued on to say, "So what if someone rejects you? Who f*cking cares?" I have to stop it right there, because you know who cares? I do. And so does that person who got rejected. And that person. The victim cares, and it's just wrong to negate that.

"Toxic relationships don't poison them; they make them immune to bulls*t"
I have such an issue with this one. I have witnessed the impact of toxic relationships on people. I was involved in a relationship that turned incredibly toxic, and it was poisoning. It influenced the way I conducted myself in relationships afterward, how I felt about myself,  how I viewed relationships in general. Being involved in a toxic relationship bruises the psyche in a daunting way and it's ignorant to ignore it.

"Failure doesn't frustrate them; it motivates them."
I don't want to make assumptions as to whether or not this author has failed something before. However, I'd be incredibly surprised to meet someone who just received an F on an exam or project that wasn't pissed. Putting the effort into producing a product or studying only to receive a failing grade in return is frustrating as all hell. Time feels wasted, effort seems unappreciated, confidence dwindles. Failure sucks.

"Mistakes don't break them; they teach them."
Similar to the point on accidents, "mistakes" is undefined and incredibly vague. The severity of a given mistake is largely dependent on a variety of factors, but in the most serious of interpretations, mistakes are crushing. Sometimes they require something as simple as an apology, but even in that sense, one must consider the person or people who were impacted by said mistake. Maybe they don't want to accept the apology, then what? Relationships can crumble at the hand of one's mistake, and that thought is terrifying.

"Losing someone doesn't make them question life; it makes them live it up."
I'm going to confidently make the assumption that everyone reading this has lost someone at some point in their life. If so, you might agree that there are few words to accurately describe the pain and heartache that death inflicts. When my close friend passed away in a car accident when she was 15, I couldn't help but question life. All I could/can think about are the why's- Why them? Why a car accident? Why so young? Why my friend? Of course, you question life. Because life, and death, are complex.  I believe it's part of the mourning process, and that's okay.

"Hitting rock bottom doesn't make them give up; it makes them work harder."
To lighten this up a bit, I'll refer to one of my favorite movies- Bridesmaids. If you haven't seen it, please do because it's hysterical. But to sum it up- girl has sh*tty job, sh*tty living situation, sh*tty love life, you name it. When her best friend gets engaged and asks her to be her maid of honor, another chick comes in and tries to take her place and "steal her bff." Things escalated and eventually, the main character loses her job, gets kicked out of her apartment, is totally screwed over by the guy she liked, and was revoked from her duty as maid of honor. She spirals into a depressive slump and finds difficult in pulling herself out. Rock bottom is not pretty, and it's completely discouraging.

"Suffering doesn't defeat them; it teaches them what's worth fighting for."
The author doesn't specify what kind of suffering they are referring to, which makes it difficult to analyze their thought. However, suffering is powerful  and complex. Getting through tough times is challenging, and the most severe cases of suffering can be difficult to overcome based on a variety of circumstantial variables.

"Breaking up doesn't make them lose faith in love; it makes them look for something better."
I experienced a nasty break-up during the beginning of my freshman year of college. It was my high school sweetheart and, while I was young and naive, I saw a future with them. When things ended, I became bitter and discouraged at the thought of love. I was heartbroken, I felt betrayed, and I wasn't sure how to go on. Even when it's a mutual break up, it's difficult to imagine ever feeling that type of way again, or to have faith in the relationships all around.

"Betrayal doesn't make them trust other people less; it makes them trust themselves more."
Sorry I'm not sorry, but what kind of person doesn't have a tainted perception of trust after being betrayed? Betrayal, as I understand it, is intentional. An accidental screw-up that causes someone pain is one thing; an intentional screw-up, a betrayal, is another. Moving on after a betrayal is difficult; you find it difficult to trust others and yourself. Betrayal seems so easy for some people to carry out, to disguise as sincerity. How can we be sure we're not being fooled?

"Being alone doesn't make them lonely; it helps them figure out who they are."
Loneliness can be painful. Looking beside you and realizing no one is there, that you're alone, can be extremely devastating. It becomes difficult to reach out for fear of bothering others, or of rejection. There's a dire thirst for interaction and for affection because often times, we find ourselves through out interactions with others, through conversation and discussion.

I felt extremely compelled to address the points in this article because they're things we have to consider. We can't overlook the hardship that people go through when bad things happen. Their feelings are real, the hurt is real, the struggle is real. It's completely insensitive to act like these emotions and experiences aren't real, because we've all felt them at some point, or will in the future.

I realize my critique was a bit harsh, so I want to clear the air- like I said, I appreciate the optimism the author had. I know they wrote this with good intentions. And to be quite honest, I agree with almost everything they said in regard to how these bad things make good people. My only real critique, I suppose, then, is that there needs to be recognition of the time it takes to overcome these obstacles. It's not a quick or easy process. It takes time and support. Given time, yes, bad things do make good people.

Adventure Fourteen: Social Sponge

I've always been known as the shy kid. I'm timid upon meeting new people, I'm not one to speak up much in my classes, I usually just keep to myself. It's nothing personal, I'm just quiet by nature.

It's kind of ironic, because everyone in my family and close group of friends is quite the opposite. They're all incredibly bubbly and outgoing, happy to make conversation with just about everyone. I usually stand amongst them and go without saying too much, making myself the first person people forget was even present for the conversation. (Totally fair, by the way.)

But please allow me to explain by shyness and quiet nature. It's not because I don't like making conversation. It's not that I hate people. It's not that I don't have anything to say or contribute.

It's because while everyone is conversing and engaging in the social atmosphere, I'm playing my role as a social sponge.

I was given the nickname "social sponge" by some of my close friends here at Mizzou. I'm often teased for being so quiet and shy amongst a lively and bubbly crew of homies. I'm always present for the jokes and conversations, but don't usually chime in unless I feel incredibly compelled to do so. Sometimes it feels kind of strange, but I usually like the peace of staying quiet.

As a social sponge, I take comfort in enjoy the company of others without speaking up. I learn so much more about a person from their energy and body language than I do from their words. I pick up on certain cues about the relationship between people based on how they interact with one another. I read people's facial expressions to get a better idea of how they feel about certain people, places, things or ideas that are the topic of discussion. Being a social sponge allows me to absorb it all and internalize it however I please.

Yes, sometimes this life I've chosen (in the most dramatic way of putting) feels like a self-inflicted mute button, and I fear people will completely (not with ill-intent I hope) forget my presence. But I've found that I'm able to grow much more through what I take in from others and their energy than through awkward and seemingly forced conversation.

Self Care for Journalists by Dart Center

I took a lot of time to look over and reflect on the Dart Center “Self Care Tips for News Media Personnel exposed to Traumatic Events.” It covered everything from what to watch for while covering trauma, what to be aware of before covering trauma, etc.

When I first started this class, I figured that covering traumatic events would be difficult to do. The emotional and mental harm that could be done when covering tragedy day after day was understandable. However, I was unaware about the severity of the harm that could impact those who's job it is to tell the story of trauma.

I never thought about how to prepare myself before covering a story on trauma. I didn't think about the importance of talking about the possible emotional risks that one may experience. It is absolutely crucial to have this conversation so reporters and camera operators don't go into the story completely blind as to what kind of trauma they may expect to experience.

I also very much appreciated how this tip sheet included a section on not unusual responses to witnessing trauma. This was a wonderful way of illustrating what kind of symptoms of trauma to be aware of, but also to make people aware that these reactions are indeed common and that can be lessened with the help of support from others. 

It's so important for us as journalists to monitor our reactions to trauma and to be aware of warning signs that may cause us to act in a harmful way. Covering trauma is not easy, but it is absolutely essential in our line of business. People need to know about trauma. They need to know about the reality of the devastation that comes with trauma. We need to understand, just as we do with any story, how to cover it accurately and professionally while remaining sensitive and aware of our audience. We can only tell the story well if we take care of ourselves, too. Journalists aren't robots, and I think everyone needs to be more aware of that. 

Celebrity suicide: Glamorization in the Media?

This article shared the news of the death of Sawyer Sweeten, the child star who was most famous for his role on Everybody Loves Raymond. This article, to me, serves as a poor example of how to cover suicide in the news, particularly the death of a celebrity. 

For one, let’s start with the headline – it comes right out and tells you that this person took their life, and used “commit suicide” as the terminology. Based on what I've read on how to cover suicide, it's best to report that "So and so died, age X" because the story is about the loss of life. Including suicide in the headline is a bit insensitive and unnecessary, as is using "commit" to describe that this person took their life because it is often associated with the idea that someone was involved in a crime.

I also didn’t enjoy how right away, the author included a statement about the tragedy of the event. Based on my research of the best tactics to use when covering suicide, it’s best to not include statements about this incident being a tragedy. It’s very understandably obvious that this event was tragic; there’s no need to throw it in people’s faces. This was someone's child, friend, colleague (even at such a young age) and their presence in world of celebrities should not take away from the fact that they were a person. Of course, if the family wants to comment, they have the freedom to do so. But what good does it do to reiterate the pain of the loss? I think they could have included the section of the quote about the family requesting privacy and respect during this time, but including the part about it being a tragic loss is not benefiting or contributing anything more to the story than what is already very much apparent. 

Additionally, I’m not sure how I feel about the way they wrapped up the article. It concluded by stating that Sawyer did not seem to have taken on any other acting opportunities after the show was done, which I thought was incredibly insensitive overall. Why did that piece of information matter? What did that contribute to the story? If you were to decide to include it, though, why would that be the finishing thought? This is still a person. Their fame was not the only thing that defined them. There is more to the story, to this person, and the loss of their life than their claim to fame and what came after. I will constantly refer back to this article as a prime example of how not to cover celebrity death by suicide in the media.