This made me cringe on so many levels. First it was aired on a station in the #1 market in the county with journalists & management that should know better.
So many questions.
What reporter/ photographer crew would think it is OK to interview a 4 year old?
Did his parent give permission?
Who chose & edited the SOT?
Either it was intentionally edited to be misleading or the context was never even thought of/discussed. Neither is an excuse.
How would you handle such a situation as a journalist in the field or a manager in charge of content?
I don't think it's always wrong to interview a 4-year-old if you have permission. However, in this instance, I probably would not interview the young boy even with permission.
ReplyDeleteMy initial instinct is that the audience does not expect nor want to hear from the 4-year-old child who has just witnessed a murder. Minimizing harm is essential to journalism ethics. I don't see much of a point in having the boy recall what happened (relive the experience) and his sound bites on what he's going to do when he grows up is irrelevant.
If I decided that an interview with the boy was imperative to my story, then I would first get parental permission, which should be fairly easy given that a 4-year-old child is likely not far from guardians. If I were unable to get permission, I definitely would not use the footage.
I think on some level the audience understands that the child has been through enough and to question the 4-year-old without permission is more than insensitive, it's completely unethical.
In terms of editing, the most important thing is context. I completely agree that there is absolutely no excuse for editing that completely changes the meaning for what is being said. To me, the editing in this footage goes beyond misleading and straddles manipulation. I think the only answer is that this type of editing should never be practiced in the newsroom. The question I always ask myself is "how does removing this content change the meaning of it?" It's a basic question, but necessary at each stage of the editing process.
I agree with Kayla when she said that she doesn't think it's always wrong to interview a 4-year-old. It's not. But it depends on the circumstances. Obviously permission is needed, and they should only be interviewed if it is crucial to the story and if a parent/guardian is present. However, there are many stories where a child interview would not further advance the story and appear insensitive.
ReplyDeleteI remember when Sandy Hook first happened, many viewers were appalled at how many children were being interviewed. Although it is a journalist's job to get information as fast as possible, asking 5 to 6-year olds about details of a shooting for their classmates will only add trauma to the children, experts say. Moreover, they are more prone to providing false information. Therefore, reporters have to ask the right questions at the right time, which can be tricky with children. Kelly McBride, a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute on ethics, reporting and writing said that reporters need to be careful because children often answer with what they think the interviewer wants to hear.
In this specific instance, it was not necessary to the story. The story was about a shooting, and I'm sure there were other observers who would share details, not a child. Also, the editing of the SOT was taken completely out of context. The omission of the child wanting to be a police officer changes the content of the interview completely, raising the issue of gun violence among the youth. Therefore, context is crucial no matter who you are interviewing, because the public is relying on journalists for accurate reports. This case does not exemplify this pillar of journalism.
Murder stories and child interviews just do not mix and it is not pleasant for the viewers. In this case, it was clear that the child's interview was unnecessary. It is already bad enough that Chicago is dealing with severe gun violence amongst black youth and for his interview to be taken out of context in that way is just wrong. Wrong on so many levels is the perfect way to describe it. The network stripped his innocence and made him look like a gang member in training. If I was the producer, I would have made sure that the interview was omitted from the rundown. I would not even have tried to correct the SOT because the child's desire to become a police officer is still irrelevant to the story.
ReplyDeleteThe reporter who edited the package would have been suspended. Reporters are the face of the network and if they are participating in unethical practices while on t the job, they should be held accountable and reprimanded.
This clip is shocking in the fact that they interviewed a 4-year-old about a shooting where someone was killed when they admitted themselves that many other children were watching. If I were the journalist on the scene I would try my hardest to get anyone older to give an eye-witness account, the child they interviewed didn't even add very much to the story. Just his age was used as a shock value to the circumstance. By adding the 4-year-old, you are taking away from the tragic account that a teenager was killed and are making more about how exposed young children are to violence.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they misconstrued his words is reprehensible. If they did that to any adult you better believe they would be in a lot of trouble. The reporter who decided to cut out the second half of this boys answer should be fired as he willfully and knowingly hid the truth and manipulated someone's words to create a different story.
This clip is shocking in the fact that they interviewed a 4-year-old about a shooting where someone was killed when they admitted themselves that many other children were watching. If I were the journalist on the scene I would try my hardest to get anyone older to give an eye-witness account, the child they interviewed didn't even add very much to the story. Just his age was used as a shock value to the circumstance. By adding the 4-year-old, you are taking away from the tragic account that a teenager was killed and are making more about how exposed young children are to violence.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they misconstrued his words is reprehensible. If they did that to any adult you better believe they would be in a lot of trouble. The reporter who decided to cut out the second half of this boys answer should be fired as he willfully and knowingly hid the truth and manipulated someone's words to create a different story.
I do not believe that it is out of line to interview a 4-year-old. Sometimes, children have interesting perspectives on situations that adults may not have. Therefore, I believe the interview with the 4-year-old was acceptable, but NOT the way that it was portrayed in the news segment.
ReplyDeleteJust as the NAACP president said, "it's important to tell the whole truth." When watching the news segment clip, I felt as though the little boy wanted to own a gun because he was negatively influenced by violence and had intentions to use the gun to do harm. Yet, the clip as a WHOLE proves otherwise. Whoever edited this video did not tell the whole truth of the story, therefore misconstruing what the boy says.
Whether it was a 4-year-old or a 40-year-old saying the quote should not matter. What matters is the way that it is delivered, and in this case, it was delivered very poorly. I would at least suspend the editor of this segment and make him or her issue an apology to the boy and his family.