When I was little I wanted to be a journalist so badly. I saw myself out there with my notebook and dictaphone, hunting out stories in crime-ridden areas, at celebrity bashes and on the streets of London, talking to the people affected by the big stories face to face. I wanted to be rushing against the clock to meet my deadline and then to wake up on Sunday mornings and see my byline in the national press. That's what I wanted.
And then I learnt what journalism was really all about. It was about constantly and aggressively bugging people who have just lost their friends, family or livelihood, forcing them to talk and, if they don't, scraping together a blend of fact and fiction from an uninspiring group of 'sources close to the subject'. It's, according to what's going on in our world today, about hacking into people's telephones and broadcasting their private lives to all and sundry. It's about pretending to listen to an interview you're given but then chopping and changing the text until it bears no resemblance to the original discussion, but plenty to the angle you're trying to take. It's also about hiding behind bushes and buildings, trying to take that photograph that could ruin someone's career, relationship or image.
When I was younger I thought journalism was about getting the story down on paper to share with the public. Now I'm not so sure. I think that it's about influencing and affecting the story, in much the same way that script writers influence the trajectory of a 'reality' television show. By creating situations to so aggressively extract information, I feel that journalists are starting to create, rather than just report, the stories of the time.
In light of the recent journalistic scandals, there have been a large amount of articles written by editors to claim that none of their journalists EVER break the law to get a story. And although I'm sure this isn't true 100% of the time, we must admit that Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, the Notw et al. aren't exactly 'getting away with it' this time. So, perhaps we're lucky in the sense that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is looking out for us.
But, regardless of law-breaking or not, there is still plenty that's considered 'legal' if not 'moral' that journalists do to in order to get their story. I've seen plenty of situations where paparazzi are seen trying to push their way into the building of a recently bereaved family or a heartbroken new divorcee. However, the story that really hit home for me this week was the death of Amy Winehouse.
The Daily Mail released their first online report within two hours of her body behind found. It outlined the fact that she was confirmed dead, the time at which this occurred and that her body had been removed from the flat. It also included the fact that, as he was on a plane to New York, it was likely that her father had not been informed. WHAT? So the newspapers know, and are free to report, the unexpected death of a 27 year old celebrity. Outpourings of grief and tributes quickly follow on facebook and twitter, but her father hasn't been notified? I don't know whether this is legal or not. But I do know it's disgusting. Business is one thing, getting the story out there first is all important for today's journalists and papers, and yes Amy Winehouse was a celebrity but come on!
The sentence 'it's not yet clear whether her father Mitch has been notified' has since been removed from the article, and it's been suggested that her parents knew immediately. Frankly, I don't wish to dither about finding out which is true. The Daily Mail did not know for certain whether her parents had been notified, and they ran the story anyway. That's all I need to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment