It might be one of the oldest and most contentious issues people have when it comes to their hatred towards reporters and "the media": talking to families of victims of crime.
Let me be the first to say: I hate it. I've always hated it. I'll probably always hate it. I actually don't know many people who take joy in trying to track down the families and friends of those who have left us. It's the hardest part of the job as a reporter. But I also feel that it is an important part of what reporters do.
Why? Because it gives the community (listeners/viewers/readers) an opportunity to get to know the person. It allows for a spotlight to be placed on their lives, rather than on the lives of the perpetrators, who so often end up getting the vast majority of the news coverage (mainly because of ongoing court proceedings, which can last years). That was one of my biggest beefs with the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, in that so much of the attention was placed on the Tsarnaev brothers, while everyone seemed to forget there were three lives lost (Krystle Marie Campbell, , 29, Lu Lingzi, 23, and Martin William Richard, 8) in the bombings. Even when you look up "Boston Marathon Bombing" on Wikipedia, a lot of the focus is on the hunt for the suspects and their lives, versus what seems to be a footnote for the three victims.
It's interesting to see the public's reaction to how "the media" handles these situations. From one side of the mouth, some will complain that there's too much focus on the suspects and not enough on the victims. From the other side of the mouth, those same people will trash the media for trying to contact the families of the victims.
I can only speak for myself and how I've handled these situations on a personal level, as well as those situations like in court where you have a throng of reporters. But here in Calgary, these interactions with families and friends are never forced. Personally, I've never been a fan of sticking a microphone in someone's face unless they deserve it (ie politicians who refuse to speak about controversies). When it comes to families and friends who have lost loved ones, I (and almost every reporter I know) will go out of our way to make sure they know that nothing's "on the record" or a microphone is even on unless they give us the okay. You always identify yourself, and then ask if the family would like to provide a statement or would be willing to answer some questions about their loved one. If they say "no", that's their right and they will be left alone. Will we ask again later in court proceedings (like when a suspect is found guilty or sentenced)? Absolutely. Because they may want to convey their feelings and messages to the public. They may also decide not to. And again, that's their right.
As an example of what it can look like when stories like this are done 100% right, look no further than Global Calgary's "Remembering the Brentwood 5." Matthew de Grood was set to go to trial on five counts of first-degree murder in the 2014 deaths of Lawrence Hong, Josh Hunter, Katie Perras, Zachariah Rathwell and Jordan Segura. So in the week leading up to that trial, Global's Jill Croteau sat down with each of the families to look back on the young lives.
The old saying is "there are two sides to every story." As reporters, we're asked and expected to get both sides of the story. Unfortunately, when it comes to crimes and tragedies, there's only one way to get the victim's side of the story, and that's through family and friends.
I will agree that there are different ways of going about that, though. Respect, in my mind, is paramount. Most abide by that. A few don't. I guess reporters have never felt the need to advertise what goes on behind-the-scenes when gathering these types of stories. Maybe it's an inferred knowledge: the belief that the consuming public already knows that the interviews were done in a kind and respectful manner. And maybe that inferred knowledge has been lost. Do we now need to go out of our way to state how we went about getting the interviews? That's probably not up to me to answer.
One other aspect worth highlighting on this topic has to do with "societal impacts". Being able to report all sides of the story might be able to give us more context to a story and what happened. In a case where a drug dealer kills another drug dealer, we shouldn't be afraid to talk about what led up to that. Some people might shake that story off and think nothing of it, but I think it is important to give listeners/viewers/readers that opportunity for background to show what really happened, before the almighty rumour mill starts to spin. I believe the same can be said in cases where mental health issues are at the forefront. We shouldn't be afraid to ask questions about it, or ultimately talk about it.
It's not to be insensitive. It's not to sensationalize the story. To me, this all brings you both sides of the story, as well as some context, so that you're better-informed about the events in your community.
