A former reporter wants to end traumatizing coverage for survivors and journalists alike

The Intermediary - Columbia Journalism Review (cjr.org)

 

Been at this a long time and completely agree.

 

Then why did you do it?

It seems like the issue is more about some reporters' aggressive tactics. Some level of empathy is required when covering cops and crime. IMO there are certain things you just don't do — like call a sibling who didn't know about his sister's killing and ask about his sister's killing.

 

Their newsroom also doesn't exactly sound great. Yeah, there is gallows humor in this industry, but at the shops I was working at typically the room would be appropriately quiet if you knew someone was making a tough phone call.

 

It's not that simple.

You don't know that the sibling doesn't know about his sister's killing until you call and find out the hard way.

 

In my day, they told me to only reach out to survivors after the cops made the announcement or someone you damn well knew you could trust told you they'd been notified.

 

Right, but police making the announcement means they've probably notified either a spouse or a parent. Outside of that, you have no idea.

 

The reporter also could have found a guaranteed quiet spot — a conference room, a different part of the building; hell, go outside or to the car — to make the call.

 

Not the point of the story, obviously, but I have a question: Why does the CJR spell out some numbers 10 and higher in this piece?

 

The job ain't for everyone. Covering terrible news sucks sometimes and isn't easy.

In a noisy newsroom, find a quiet place and make that call.

The New Yorker spells out numbers and it drives me bananas.

 

I took it to be less about the ambient noise for a given phone call and more about the contrast between what her colleagues were covering versus the gravity of what she was assigned to write.

 

Maybe the better question to ask is why we're making that call in the first place.