Do you need all the gritty details of a news story?

[tbb113]

I've been wondering about this for a while and with the reappearance of Jaycee Dugard I'm going to finally ask.

IMHO the news was that she was found and had been held captive for the last 18 years. The other information (she was raped, the police missed cues, how her family reunion is going, what will happen to her and her children, how the defendants looked at their hearing, etc) is not news. It is the makings of a book or a tv movie and it is definitely be used as testimony at the trial.

I dislike the loss of privacy for her and her family, the possiblity of tainting the jury pool (makes it harder to find someone who doesn't know the details), etc.

Am I the only one that feels this way? I really don't need to know or see the on-line slide show, timeline, videos, map and more about the case plus the newspaper articles, the talk show hosts, etc.

[KristiB]

I agree and it's one of the reasons I dislike TV news.

[sneezles]

Print media is just as bad as tv news. I totally agree that most of the information given is unnecessary. What's worse is the commentators added emotions to reading a teleprompter.

BTA: Unfortunately there are hordes who eat up all those details...maroons.

[tbb113]

Originally Posted by sneezles

BTA: Unfortunately there are hordes who eat up all those details...maroons.

I don't mind people wanting to read/know the details. That is what true-life books, memiors, movies are for. I just don't think that it is appropriate for the news portion of a tv show and fodder for talk show hosts.

[LakeMartinGal]

I agree, Tyra. And I don't watch the news, if I can help it. I do read some newspaper reports, but I somehow don't think that's as bad as shoving a camera in a tragedy victim's face and asking how they feel about what happened. I do think they overdo the 'facts' to make a story -- to many details we don't need to know, and reiterated way too often to keep the situation on the front page.

[sneezles]

Originally Posted by tbb113

I don't mind people wanting to read/know the details. That is what true-life books, memiors, movies are for. I just don't think that it is appropriate for the news portion of a tv show and fodder for talk show hosts.

Well, I was referring to tv not books.

[KristiB]

Originally Posted by sneezles

Print media is just as bad as tv news.

True but I find reading the news easier to digest. Hysteria isn't conveyed as easily.

A friend of a friends husband was recently brutally murdered and their street was full of TV news vans and anyone going near the house was ambushed by journalists wanting to know how the family was coping blah blah blah...

[blazedog]

I think this kinds of sensationalist stories take over the television media which is why I don't watch television news except that which I have TIVO'ed and I fast forward through the crap.

The television news goes over and over the same stuff -- endless speculation because they have to fill their news -- and presumably also because they are pandering to the lowest common denominator so they want to get the audience that is tuned in -- same reason why the same songs are played over and over again on a radio station -- assuming people who are scanning the dials will stay on the station.

I don't think newspapers (at least non-tabloid newspapers) give it this much prominence. There was an article in the Los Angeles Times and there was an article in the NY Times -- and there were also plenty of OTHER articles in both papers on news that really is important -- so at least in my opinion, non-tabloid print media is certainly not in the same pandering category with respect to sensational non-news -- Octomom, Michael Jackson death et al.

[tbb113]

Originally Posted by blazedog

I don't think newspapers (at least non-tabloid newspapers) give it this much prominence. There was an article in the Los Angeles Times and there was an article in the NY Times -- and there were also plenty of OTHER articles in both papers on news that really is important -- so at least in my opinion, non-tabloid print media is certainly not in the same pandering category with respect to sensational non-news -- Octomom, Michael Jackson death et al.

Maybe because it is local to me, the newspapers are covering it in detail. Talk radio was discussing it quite a bit as well and getting all up in arms about not being tough enough on crime, his probation officers not following through, Antioch police screwing it up, ad nauseum. I'm all for being tough on criminials, but can you make sure the state can financial afford the longer sentences, parole checks, etc?

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by tbb113

Maybe because it is local to me, the newspapers are covering it in detail. Talk radio was discussing it quite a bit as well and getting all up in arms about not being tough enough on crime, his probation officers not following through, Antioch police screwing it up, ad nauseum. I'm all for being tough on criminials, but can you make sure the state can financial afford the longer sentences, parole checks, etc?

I would imagine a local newspaper would be following it in more depth -- the Los Angeles Times had its story on the front page whereas the NY Times had it in the back with little prominence -- which is why I subscribe to the NY Times wherever I have lived.

Talk radio is not something I listen to but I would imagine that the airwaves are filled with it as it's exactly the kind of meaningless story that they can "pontificate" and shriek about. There is absolutely no "meaning" to it except that it is sensational but then there have been a few of these in the past few years -- the German guy who had imprisoned a woman in his basement for decades along with the children he fathered with her -- that girl from Utah who was fortunately saved after only a year or so -- but really what is the takeaway? As you point out, any solution would be complicated if not impossible.

[sneezles]

Originally Posted by tbb113

Maybe because it is local to me, the newspapers are covering it in detail. Talk radio was discussing it quite a bit as well and getting all up in arms about not being tough enough on crime, his probation officers not following through, Antioch police screwing it up, ad nauseum. I'm all for being tough on criminials, but can you make sure the state can financial afford the longer sentences, parole checks, etc?

We got the same cr@p here so it's not local. It's simply media trying to outdo their competitors be it tv or print...national or local.

[jenniferW]

I've been wondering what the psycholoical effect of listening to so much detailed horrific news can do to someone day in and day out.

[generic]

Originally Posted by jenniferW

I've been wondering what the psychological effect of listening to so much detailed horrific news can do to someone day in and day out.

I just read a novel where one of the characters gets disgusted with the endless replaying of horrific scenes on TV. The character says to himself, "They're using human tragedy as video wallpaper."
Maybe those who watch all the time start to see it this way and become numb to the reality of it.

To answer your question, Tyra, no, I do not want nor need those details. I'm especially sensitive to visual stimuli, so I have to be careful about the images I see. Disturbing ones don't fade from my mind, and they replay when I close my eyes. This is just one of the many reasons I don't do TV. I prefer to get my news in written form. Then I can skip the stories that are not essential, and scan past the gritty details to the important points.

[MusicMom]

The thing I dislike most are the replays of 911 calls and cockpit recorders. That just feeds the sensationalism of the story. I really feel for the people who made the call or the recording- and their families and friends who must relive the tragedy every time they hear it. I always turn off news stories when they're about to play recordings.

[jenniferW]

Originally Posted by generic

I'm especially sensitive to visual stimuli, so I have to be careful about the images I see. Disturbing ones don't fade from my mind, and they replay when I close my eyes.

I experience the same thing. I'm also sensitive to hearing stories. I'll imagine what someone may have gone through and replay that image. What I find strange is that DH will hear a story, feel bad for a moment and then move on. But, he can't watch graphic movies (slasher movies). They make him physically sick. I don't enjoy those kind of movies, but my brain recognizes these images aren't real and can forget the image.

[KristiB]

Originally Posted by MusicMom

The thing I dislike most are the replays of 911 calls and cockpit recorders. That just feeds the sensationalism of the story. I really feel for the people who made the call or the recording- and their families and friends who must relive the tragedy every time they hear it. I always turn off news stories when they're about to play recordings.

I thought of that when they kept playing tapes and video of 9-11.

[FLFlygirl]

I agree about the over-sensationalism of all the graphic/gory details. There are things we just don't need to know, and once it is "put out there" we can't "un-know" it.

As an aviation professional myself for over 20 years, and as the wife of an airline pilot, I have extremely strong feelings about releasing the cockpit voice recordings publicly post-accident. The CVRs were not designed to titilate the public, they were designed to help investigators determine what went wrong and fix any systemic problems, either with training or the aircraft itself. The only reason they were able to be installed was that pilots were assured that they would never be released to the public, yet here they are.

The release of those tapes, in any accident, to the public is a betrayal of the pilot(s) and the their family; particularly when "the public" or "the media" is looking for a scape-goat. The two pilots of the Continental Express/Colgan Air accident in upstate NY were absolutly villified for no reason other than they participated in a system that has existed in commercial avaiation for many years. There were no surprises, at least to us in the business, about commuting, low pay, crash pads, sleeping in the crew rooms, etc. We have asked for help for years, and nothing ever gets done. Colgan had much more culpability, IMO, but it was so much easier to blame the pilots, especially when their private conversations were aired for all to hear. I feel so bad for their families.

I swore to my husband if he was ever involved in a fatal accident I would fight tooth and nail to prevent the release of any CVR tapes. And I will. There is no reason on earth "the public" has a need to hear them. That is for the investigators, safety committees, and the families. I admired Dale Ernhardt's widow for the stand she took against releasing accident photos after her husband's fatal accident. And I admire the tenacity it took for her to eventually win, and not having those last photos of her husband released. If it ever comes to that for my family, and this is just a reality we face every day, I hope I can be like her.

Thank goodness the pilots fought (and won) against the installation of VIDEO recorders in the cockpit. Imagine what we would see on the evening news if the airlines were successful in having them installed.

And to the poster who asked about the psychological aspect, as someone who has been trained as a peer counselor for aviation critical incidents and trauma response, with my admittedly limited training, I think it is horribly damaging and by allowing these traumas to be replayed over and over we are traumatizing ourselves as a whole. Who is there to catch the fragile ones who can't cope when they fall? Anyone?

OK, I get off my soapbox now. But thank you all for the thought provoking thread.

Colleen

[HejazSunKat]

Originally Posted by tbb113

IMHO the news was that she was found and had been held captive for the last 18 years. The other information (she was raped, the police missed cues, how her family reunion is going, what will happen to her and her children, how the defendants looked at their hearing, etc) is not news.

Am I the only one that feels this way? I really don't need to know or see the on-line slide show, timeline, videos, map and more about the case plus the newspaper articles, the talk show hosts, etc.

I think the facts, the when, where, why and how could this have happened are news. People want to understand the situation and hopefully they want to learn from it. Could I as someone who came in casual contact have been more observant or proactive? Could the cops, parole officers or other officials have been? I think that's very important for people to talk and think about because who knows where else in the world something similar is going on and it only takes one person with a funny feeling to tip off the authorities. Maybe the example of this case would make somebody listen to that hunch about their odd neighbor. I think people also feel sympathy and compassion for the victims and want to see them have some kind of a happy ending and see the bad guy get his just desserts so that's why I think there's such intense interest in a sensational case like this but you're right, the news media fans all this natural human curiosity and digs up every minute tidbit and rehashes it over and over ad nauseum which is not helpful in any way.

[leightx]

I suppose this is why I prefer to read my news online (I like newspapers too, but they're too unwieldy and create unnecessary mess in my house). I can pick and choose how much I read, which articles I see, and when enough is enough, without feeling like I could be "missing" something by turning off the TV mid-newscast.

I literally never watch TV news, and it's never on in our house. DH and I both read the news online every morning (he reads CNN and the local newspaper, I read NYT and CNN and whatever he points out in the Statesman). I skip over sensational stories, or read the information once without hearing it every 10 minutes.

As an aside, I hate that many online news websites (CNN in particular) are making some stories available on video only. I'm going to a website to READ, not WATCH. I wish they'd at least provide a transcripts, so I don't have to see the overly-sensationalized, emotional B.S. Argh.

[donleyk]

Originally Posted by tbb113

, the possiblity of tainting the jury pool (makes it harder to find someone who doesn't know the details), etc.

.

This is what bothered me or rather, one of the things that popped into my head when I saw the weekend Today show dragging out all the "experts". They had a retired FBI profiler that was going on about how this guy is probably a serial killer.

Okay, be that as it may, how unfair is it to casually toss that out? California is already getting plenty of coverage since it happened in that state so how do you find a jury that hasn't been tainted?

I appreciated the details of the reunion and her story and update because I was unaware of the abduction. I didn't feel that there was more information than what was necessary. And, really, if you wanted to blame anyone then the stepdad needs to be blamed. I don't blame him though since he had this shadow over him the last 18 years and it broke up his marriage.

[Valerie226]

Originally Posted by HejazSunKat

I think the facts, the when, where, why and how could this have happened are news. People want to understand the situation and hopefully they want to learn from it. Could I as someone who came in casual contact have been more observant or proactive? Could the cops, parole officers or other officials have been? I think that's very important for people to talk and think about because who knows where else in the world something similar is going on and it only takes one person with a funny feeling to tip off the authorities. Maybe the example of this case would make somebody listen to that hunch about their odd neighbor. I think people also feel sympathy and compassion for the victims and want to see them have some kind of a happy ending and see the bad guy get his just desserts so that's why I think there's such intense interest in a sensational case like this but you're right, the news media fans all this natural human curiosity and digs up every minute tidbit and rehashes it over and over ad nauseum which is not helpful in any way.

I have read only the original articles about this story and do NOT watch TV coverage nor all the followup garbage.

What I found newsworthy was that this guy was certainly ON the radar of a number of agencies. the authorities, who over the years have watched this guy and been to his house, especially the 911 call about people living in tents in his back yard, no one seems to have looked very closely, or looked at all.
Maybe he was clever and devious and outsmarted everyone but it also seems like people may well have been sleepwalking through their jobs.

I also hope that the frenzied media does not further damage this poor woman, her family, and her children.