Hiccup on teen mom feature ...

My point is teenagers preggers by a relative are less common - and certainly less talked about.

 

I suppose so.
Not my cup of tea .. I'd rather discuss real journalism scenarios and issues and save the fantasy bullshit for a non-journo thread.


Carry on.

-30-

 

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32360

 

I would run the uncle's name through the state sex offender registry (if you have one) or track it through authorities to see if there were charges.

(I am not saying necessarily run the story, but that's a place to start).

And again, it's not incest if they're not blood related.

 

For the record, I completely understand why some find the story idea "distasteful."

For the same reason that I find Springer distasteful.

But that's where the empathy - which some of you have decided I lack - comes in. I think that a real journalist could handle the story with taste, empathy, and an eye/ear for the larger social issue/public interest to tie it to.

It can be salacious. It can be sensationalistic. But it doesn't have to be.

 

let's assume that is true, that there is a 'great story' to be told here and it could be deftly dealt with by a 'great journo.'

does this mean any journo who, in the end, opts not to take it on is not now or ever become a 'great journo?' this is the theory put forth by you that i and some others have taken exception to.


and, indeed, a splendid teaching tool this story is, whether it be fact or fiction...

 

No.

There are plenty of great journalists who wouldn't be good at this kind of story. Everyone's skill set is different. There's the rare guy like Michael Lewis who can do this kind of piece and tie it seamlessly into complex financial instruments and never break stride. But those guys are rarities.

I think a willingness to take on a story like this is sufficient to make you a great journalist, but not necessarily necessary.

 

I think that it's a bit of a myth that most of us are great journalists just waiting for the great story that will be a "career maker."

In the plain light of day, we are probably mostly passable or fairly good journalists who, when given a great situation as material, will write a passable or good story. Heck, it might even win a regional award.

And we'll go on with our lives or careers.

For the subjects of the stories, however, it's much more likely to be a life-altering experience: for better or worse.

But, we won't really care because we'll have the clip.

 

I think that's an extremely cynical view of journalism.

I don't share it.

 

Do you have to chops to handle such a story well?

 

Utterly nothing about this story that cries for it to be published. There is journalism out there that brings down governments and corporations, that sheds light on things that kill hundreds, thousands, millions of people. This would be merely a creepy campfire story, assuming we're not exposing an unknown trend of niece-fucking.

 

Ya, at some point, journalistic ideals have to take a backseat to humanity. This story would do more harm than good, even if that "good" included a bunch of awards. I'd rather fail at my mission, as it were, than interview a high school athlete about fathering a child by her uncle.