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.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, May 1, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
A VERY poor example of suicide in the news
As I've been looking through various examples of suicide coverage in the news, I've seen a fair share of both great examples and horrible ones. But this article by Daily News may take the cake for the worst coverage I have ever seen.
The article wastes no time in painting a picture of the incident. The headline reads, "Woman, 21, hands herself from Brooklyn fire escape in suicide." Try reading that while eating breakfast.
I had a difficult time moving past this headline. Why on earth would someone think that would be an appropriate way to introduce the story? Headlines are a huge determinant of whether or not people will click to read more, and not only is this incredibly graphic, it doesn't accurately tell the story of the loss of life.
The article included quotes from neighbors who discovered the victim. I could not believe the journalist used this information as a way to tell the story. What good does it do to describe the image of a lifeless body hanging outside someone's window? Or that she looked like a mannequin? Or what her neck looked like? As one of the sources in the article said, "I didn't need to see that." I'm sure readers were thinking something similar, something along the lines of, "I didn't need to read that."
I was also in absolute shock that they decided to include a photo of the medical examiners taking the body away from the scene of the death. The first thing I learned about when covering suicide was to be incredibly sensitive about the visuals you include. There is no benefit in including pictures of where the death occurred, how it occurred, etc. If anything, its respectable to include a photo of the victim from school, work, family events and the like as to represent them in the most accurate and sensitive manner.
The article continues on with a handful of quotes from neighbors like the one mentioned previously, and included statements like "She was a good person," or "Everything seemed perfectly fine." In most cases, those who die by suicide are suffering from some sort of mental illness, so to say that everything seemed perfectly fine is blatantly ignorant of the possible emotional devastation that the victim was going through. I am in complete shock that someone published this article, and even more so that it hasn't been pulled off the web. I will forever use this piece as an example of how not to cover suicide in the media.
The article wastes no time in painting a picture of the incident. The headline reads, "Woman, 21, hands herself from Brooklyn fire escape in suicide." Try reading that while eating breakfast.
I had a difficult time moving past this headline. Why on earth would someone think that would be an appropriate way to introduce the story? Headlines are a huge determinant of whether or not people will click to read more, and not only is this incredibly graphic, it doesn't accurately tell the story of the loss of life.
The article included quotes from neighbors who discovered the victim. I could not believe the journalist used this information as a way to tell the story. What good does it do to describe the image of a lifeless body hanging outside someone's window? Or that she looked like a mannequin? Or what her neck looked like? As one of the sources in the article said, "I didn't need to see that." I'm sure readers were thinking something similar, something along the lines of, "I didn't need to read that."
I was also in absolute shock that they decided to include a photo of the medical examiners taking the body away from the scene of the death. The first thing I learned about when covering suicide was to be incredibly sensitive about the visuals you include. There is no benefit in including pictures of where the death occurred, how it occurred, etc. If anything, its respectable to include a photo of the victim from school, work, family events and the like as to represent them in the most accurate and sensitive manner.
The article continues on with a handful of quotes from neighbors like the one mentioned previously, and included statements like "She was a good person," or "Everything seemed perfectly fine." In most cases, those who die by suicide are suffering from some sort of mental illness, so to say that everything seemed perfectly fine is blatantly ignorant of the possible emotional devastation that the victim was going through. I am in complete shock that someone published this article, and even more so that it hasn't been pulled off the web. I will forever use this piece as an example of how not to cover suicide in the media.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Adventure Thirteen: On Writer's Block
F*ck writer's block.
Everyone experiences it at some point. Whether you're struggling to write a term paper, trying to articulate your emotions in your journal, or trying to revamp your resume as to impress potential employers, writers block can strike at any moment, and it's difficult to shake.
My mind is constantly racing at what seems like a million miles per second. I find myself constantly writing notes in my phone about things I'd like to write about, things I'd like to dissect and analyze for no other purpose than just to do so. I write them down so the next thought that bombards my brain doesn't completely knock the previous thought from memory.
But even still, even when I commit to writing down brief ideas to later explore and articulate from my noggin through my fingers, I find myself at a loss for words. I find it difficult to translate what I'm thinking into words for others to read and digest. Organizing my thoughts becomes daunting, and I start feeling so discouraged that my motivation completely dwindles.
I've tried nearly every trick in the book to remedy my writer's block; pushing through and accepting that the writing is garbage, taking a break, talking out loud, caffeine, nothing usually helps. And as an aspiring journalist, writer's block is one of the most inconvenient kinds of mental spacing that one can do.
Because I refuse to allow myself to fall victim to it, I've pushed myself to combat it. Taking a break usually helps, so long as I don't get too distracted in the process and completely forget what I was doing. Caffeine sometimes helps, though there is such a thing as too much of a good thing once the coffee jitters set in. The most successful remedy for me, though, has been taking a break from it, but not entirely.
Because I fear my lack of self control when it comes to my attention span, if I keep writing but about a different topic or theme, I still keep my writing juices moving but allow my mental to have time to not think so hard about one given idea. I still get distracted and restless from time to time, but it's been an opportunity to strengthen my concentration skills and work ethic.
Everyone experiences it at some point. Whether you're struggling to write a term paper, trying to articulate your emotions in your journal, or trying to revamp your resume as to impress potential employers, writers block can strike at any moment, and it's difficult to shake.
My mind is constantly racing at what seems like a million miles per second. I find myself constantly writing notes in my phone about things I'd like to write about, things I'd like to dissect and analyze for no other purpose than just to do so. I write them down so the next thought that bombards my brain doesn't completely knock the previous thought from memory.
But even still, even when I commit to writing down brief ideas to later explore and articulate from my noggin through my fingers, I find myself at a loss for words. I find it difficult to translate what I'm thinking into words for others to read and digest. Organizing my thoughts becomes daunting, and I start feeling so discouraged that my motivation completely dwindles.
I've tried nearly every trick in the book to remedy my writer's block; pushing through and accepting that the writing is garbage, taking a break, talking out loud, caffeine, nothing usually helps. And as an aspiring journalist, writer's block is one of the most inconvenient kinds of mental spacing that one can do.
Because I refuse to allow myself to fall victim to it, I've pushed myself to combat it. Taking a break usually helps, so long as I don't get too distracted in the process and completely forget what I was doing. Caffeine sometimes helps, though there is such a thing as too much of a good thing once the coffee jitters set in. The most successful remedy for me, though, has been taking a break from it, but not entirely.
Because I fear my lack of self control when it comes to my attention span, if I keep writing but about a different topic or theme, I still keep my writing juices moving but allow my mental to have time to not think so hard about one given idea. I still get distracted and restless from time to time, but it's been an opportunity to strengthen my concentration skills and work ethic.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Suicide Coverage by Mizzou grad
This week, we had the opportunity to speak with Dugan Arnett, a Mizzou grad who now works for the Kansas City Star. Arnett covered the story of two high school girls who took their lives just days apart from one another. I was thrilled to be able to listen to his perspective on covering the story and to hear what it tales to report on suicide in the news.
There were a total of three pieces on the deaths of these two girls. Each piece was different, shedding light on the incidents themselves, how the community was reacting and recovering, and how to move forward. The narrative of each was beautifully and sensitively done, while still remaining professional and accurate.
I really enjoyed the effort Arnett put into covering such a complex and difficult topic. He said he had never covered suicide before this story, and felt a little lost as to how to go about doing so. He reached out to a variety of sources- the school, members of the soccer team that the girls played on, citizens in the community, etc. He shed light on the devastation of the deaths, but not in a way that seemed invasive or sensationalized. He told the story of the loss in the community and how people were dealing with it.
My only critiques of the way this was covered was some of the terminology when referring to the incident, as well as the lack of helpful resources for those reading the story or those impacted by the event. I asked Arnett about his choice to use "commit suicide" throughout the articles, to which he said, in a reflective way, that he did not really think about it too much. I didn't want to ask in a way that came off as accusatory or to make him feel guilty, but I was curious as to whether or not he had seen anything in his research prior to covering the story that encouraged a more sensitive word choice. Commit is often associated with crime, which is not what is meant to be reflected in these stories after someone has taken their own life.
As a class, we asked Arnett about the picture he used in the article of the school the girls attended. He said it was one the Kansas City Star already had and thought it would be the most appropriate photo to use. We asked about whether or not he thought the picture painted a picture of the deaths of these girls in a way that looked angelic or heavenly, to which he said wasn't his intention. I've learned that when covering suicide, it's important to consider the impact that visuals have. I don't think it was bad of him to use the image of the school, but I do believe there may have been other pictures that would have better represented the story and the life of these two girls.
There were a total of three pieces on the deaths of these two girls. Each piece was different, shedding light on the incidents themselves, how the community was reacting and recovering, and how to move forward. The narrative of each was beautifully and sensitively done, while still remaining professional and accurate.
I really enjoyed the effort Arnett put into covering such a complex and difficult topic. He said he had never covered suicide before this story, and felt a little lost as to how to go about doing so. He reached out to a variety of sources- the school, members of the soccer team that the girls played on, citizens in the community, etc. He shed light on the devastation of the deaths, but not in a way that seemed invasive or sensationalized. He told the story of the loss in the community and how people were dealing with it.
My only critiques of the way this was covered was some of the terminology when referring to the incident, as well as the lack of helpful resources for those reading the story or those impacted by the event. I asked Arnett about his choice to use "commit suicide" throughout the articles, to which he said, in a reflective way, that he did not really think about it too much. I didn't want to ask in a way that came off as accusatory or to make him feel guilty, but I was curious as to whether or not he had seen anything in his research prior to covering the story that encouraged a more sensitive word choice. Commit is often associated with crime, which is not what is meant to be reflected in these stories after someone has taken their own life.
As a class, we asked Arnett about the picture he used in the article of the school the girls attended. He said it was one the Kansas City Star already had and thought it would be the most appropriate photo to use. We asked about whether or not he thought the picture painted a picture of the deaths of these girls in a way that looked angelic or heavenly, to which he said wasn't his intention. I've learned that when covering suicide, it's important to consider the impact that visuals have. I don't think it was bad of him to use the image of the school, but I do believe there may have been other pictures that would have better represented the story and the life of these two girls.
Trauma Survivor Interview: Drew Kohler
For my trauma survivor interview, I
spoke with Drew Kohler, a senior here at Mizzou who is originally from Riverside,
IL. He was an interesting individual to interview for this project because
there were a handful of people who took their lives within his small community.
He spoke of
a boy he played hockey with. Hockey was his life. He loved everything about the
sport. But when his grades started slipping, he was removed from the team
roster in hopes of giving him more time to spend on academics. No one can ever
know or understand the emotional and mental chaos that was occurring inside of
him that led him to take his own life, but there was a lot of conversation
around the community about the correlation between being cut from the team and
his decision to take his life.
Kohler also spoke of a man who he had known since he was little. The gentleman did work on his house for years, and became a close family friend of his. His son went to the rival high school in the town next to his, and discussed how he had been the victim of bullying throughout his life. The bullying had become so difficult to deal with, and decided to take his life. Like I mentioned previously, it can't be known whether or not this was the reason he decided to end his life, but mental illness and bullying are a scary combination. He expressed frustration at the thought of this, because he thought it was incredibly preventable. He said it's about how kids are raised, how kids learn to interact with each other and how to deal with bullying, and that no one should ever have to deal with the emotional destruction that bullying inflicts.
He also told the story of a girl from his high school who's mother took her own life, and that the girl was the one who discovered her mother. There was minimal information about the woman and her situation when her death was reported, which I think was appropriate. As I've learned in my research on how to cover suicide, why someone took their life isn't the story- the story is about the loss of life and reporting on ways to combat suicide and to look for warning signs.
Kohler said that while his small community did cover the deaths of these individuals, there was very little follow-up in regard to how the community is recovering and what the grieving process had been. He said his high school offered resources for support and comfort, but there was minimal coverage about how to move forward, where to seek help, what to look for, etc.
I think it's even more important, especially in small communities like this, to cover all acts of trauma when reporting on suicide. Each of these deaths hit so close to home for the small population, it's a shame that there wasn't more coverage on how this tight-knit community could work together to recovery and show resilience and support and to understand how to possible combat suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)