TV reporter tells wife her husband died

[Paper Trail]

Tim Cuprisin

An angry Milwaukee Police Chief Nannette Hegerty made a rare appearance at Thursday's regular morning news briefing with reporters, standing beside Deputy Chief Brian O'Keefe, as he ripped Channel 4 for what he called "despicable" behavior after anchor-reporter Courtny Gerrish called the wife of a boxing instructor killed in a shooting.

The city's top cops say Channel 4 called the family home before police had time to inform relatives of Scott Huggins' death on Wednesday. And they say it's out of line for relatives to learn such tragic news from a reporter, rather than police.

"We were on our way to notify them when Ms. Gerrish made the phone call," says police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz.

But Channel 4 news director Bill Berra counters that it was never the station's intention to break the news of Huggins' death - and he says he's surprised by how long it took for police to notify the family.

"I'm just terribly upset that we were put in the position of having to tell the family," Berra says. "And I apologize to them in every way possible. We didn't think we'd be telling the family 4 1/2 hours after the event."

"In our world, four hours is not a long time. We want to be absolutely sure that we have the identity of the person, that we know where to find the next of kin," she says. "If the media call and ask, we let them know that family notification has been made."

Berra says Gerrish isn't available to talk publicly about this. He describes her as "shocked to find that they didn't know" when she called the home for comment around 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, hours after Huggins was shot at a north side gas station.

"It's a regular, routine part of journalism," Berra says of such calls.

Gerrish might have found the family by tracing the license plate.

"We trace victims all sorts of ways, that being one of them," says Berra.

[Bandit '07]

"It's a regular, routine part of journalism," Berra says of such calls. So is calling the cops to see if the next-of-kin has been notified. Jerks. :rolleyes:

[2:30]

It happens. And, no, Bandit, you don't usually call the cops first to find out if they've notified the family.

In fact, such a call would be very unusual.

You expect that if YOU know the name, the police have released it...and they don't release it until they've notified the family.

As an aside, I don't know how it makes that much difference how you learn that a loved one has died. They're dead either way.

[ March 23, 2007, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: 2:30 ]

[cinehead]

Originally posted by 2:30:
I don't know how it makes that much difference how you learn that a loved one has died. They're dead either way.That line speaks volumes about the state of journalism today.

[The Mockingbird]

I would have thought 2:30 would be more concerned about dead people, given that they're such strong Democratic supporters in Chicago...

[Omega Man]

ZING!

[ZuZu's Petals]

Originally posted by 2:30:
As an aside, I don't know how it makes that much difference how you learn that a loved one has died. They're dead either way.I can't believe someone wrote this! I'm just stunned.

It does matter. In cases that it can be done... it should be an official notice. Grief and denial are important factors and difficult emotions. You don't want to find out from someone who could be wrong or misinformed.

Why do you suppose the military has protocol set up for notifying families? As much as a wife or mother hates to see that car pull into the driveway... it's much better than hearing a rumor and having to sort out the truth.

When my sister was murdered she was missing for 16 days before we knew for sure. Friends and family searched the river in canoes... the sheriff's department was out searching for her. My parents sent me back to school - thinking it was better to have my mind off of it.

The sheriff's office called my parents and told them they found her body. (Mom and Dad were upset about that. They felt they should have sent someone in person - especially considering we were waiting for word.)
Meanwhile, the principal of my school came to get me out of Geometry class and said that my parents asked him to drive me home, they had news.

Well, I knew right then that she was dead. If it was good news - he would have told me. (no protocol necessary for GOOD news)

It was a 30 minute drive and he decided to tell me a story about about when his best friend died in high school. More confirmation my sister was dead and I'd never see her again (not even in a casket) But at least I was prepared to face Mom when she told me the news.

You see... it does matter how you find out a loved one is dead. If for no other reason than you remember that moment for the rest of your life.

Don't toy with that power.

[Bandit '07]

I disagree, 230 ... look at what the story says ...

Gerrish might have found the family by tracing the license plate.

"We trace victims all sorts of ways, that being one of them," says Berra. Sounds like the reporter traced the ID without talking to the cops, and without apparently checking to see if the name had been released.

[LittleBabyPuppy]

She ruined her station's relationship with the police department. Oh well, a lesson learned the hard way.

I know a reporter who did that a few years ago, and the police tried to get him fired.

On the bright side, at least she called the right family.

[Desert Rat]

In my opinion, 2:30 might have a different take on it if it was one of her family matters.

But judging her on her posts, I doubt it.

[aphia]

Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air.... but I don't think it would be too much to verify with the cops that they have already made the notification. I can see how this would happen and could happen to any of us, but it is a little inconsiderate to not make that quick call to the cops...

just an outsider looking in, I don't know all the details of the cops relationship with media in mke.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Desert Rat:
In my opinion, 2:30 might have a different take on it if it was one of her family matters.

But judging her on her posts, I doubt it.So do I.

[Signature on File]

We just show fatal car crashes from the helicopter and ask viewers to call in if they recognize the car. We've had a couple of correct callers....IE..... "That looks like my husband's BMW"..

[TVShootist]

Even when I was working in TV, I've always frowned upon the practice of calling the next of kin for comments about their dead loved one.

I mean really, what's the purpose of it? For god sakes, they just suffered the loss of someone that was dear to them, that they loved. What do you expect from them as far as a comment goes?

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by aphia:
Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air..Why?

How is bothering a grieving family "newsworthy"? Are you expecting them to say something out of the ordinary, like "yeah, we pretty much expected he'd get shot in the head one day, and quite frankly he had it coming to him."

THIS is why the bottom feeders of local news sully the reputation of the industry as a whole for the rest of us.

[Bandit '07]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aphia:
Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air..Why?

How is bothering a grieving family "newsworthy"? Are you expecting them to say something out of the ordinary, like "yeah, we pretty much expected he'd get shot in the head one day, and quite frankly he had it coming to him."

THIS is why the bottom feeders of local news sully the reputation of the industry as a whole for the rest of us.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree - I think scheduling a TV interview is about the last thing on the list of someone whose loved one passed away - especially the same F'IN day!

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by TVShootist.:
Even when I was working in TV, I've always frowned upon the practice of calling the next of kin for comments about their dead loved one.

I mean really, what's the purpose of it? For god sakes, they just suffered the loss of someone that was dear to them, that they loved. What do you expect from them as far as a comment goes?I was asked to do that one time and refused. I knew then and know now that it was the right decision.

[ProSports23]

Powerful story Zuzu, thank you for sharing it.

And I completely agree TV Matt and Shootist, *why* call the family at all?

What do the vultures say when they call anyway? "Hello Sir, I am so sorry that your loved one just died, would you let us come in your home and use your emotion to better our ratings? Your bites will promininatly be featured in our evening topicals and open if we can get there by seven"

Despicable.

[News Lady]

I think the police are trying to use the reporter as a scapegoat. How did the reporter learn the name of the victim? Police usually don't release that information until the family notification is made. Plus 4 1/2 hours had passed since the incident. I have been at crime scenes where family members have showed up within the hour. 4 1/2 hours is a long time for a notification, unless police didn't know the identity right away if they don't know the identity, how did the reporter know.

I can play devil's advocate here, let's say the police did not inform or tip off reporters before family (which in my opinion would really be despicable) and there was an over eager reporter trying to get the family reaction first, she uses maybe a license plate or other resources to get a name. If that was the case then the reporter did messup if she told family of the death. If she got that information from sources, it wouldn't have been confirmed until she got it from police and if you are just going on a hunch, you call and say I am looking for the family of Joe Blow, not I'm calling to get reaction about your husband's death.

I had something like this happen to me. I was in a small market and the DOD sent out a release that an area soldier had died. We looked up the number of relatives, a producer told me to call and try to locate the family. I called the first number I found and I said I was looking for the family of Soldier yadda yadda, she said she was his mother. I could tell something in her voice, that didn't seem right. She said did something happen. I said did you receive a call from the army, she said no, I said we are just contacting families of soldiers serving in Iraq to check on them, thank you for your time. I felt terrible because she didn't know and though I didn't come out and say it, my phone call hinted to it. Within a few hours her yard was covered with media, still before the Army showed up. We are not going to act on the information unless you put it out there. They should have gone to that woman's door first and sent out the press release after, but because someone drop the ball, I ended up being the one to call this woman. Contacting loved ones during a death or tragedy, no matter how difficult it is, it comes with the job. This is a very sensitive time and a reporter should approach family members with empathy and most of all caution, but its the job of the proper authorities to notify the family before us, if they fail on that the onus is on them

[ March 23, 2007, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: News Lady ]

[The Mockingbird]

No it isn't, that's just cheap rationalization. Stop being the tool reporter on Die Hard.

Look at it this way: a year from now, nobody is going to care who got the name of the victims in the double shooting on the air first.

A year from now, the family of the victims will definitely remember the arsehole station reporter that called and bluntly told them their loved one was dead, and then asked for an interview.

When someone loses someone, they want to be angry. Give them a good reason, and you have a negative PR machine running around 24/7 talking about the dicks at Channel Z.

Why people haven't grasped this simple and basic fact in more than a half century of TV journalism is beyond me.

[Charlie Brown]

out of curiosity, why was the DoD sending out a press release on this soldier's death before notifying the family?

If a press release has been sent out regarding just about anything, it is reasonable to expect that the principles in said press release (in this case, the dead soldier's family) would already know the information contained in said release. You can't fault the media for showing up on the family's lawn in that situation.

[News Lady]

Charlie Brown, my point exactly. The release should not have been sent. I don't know if that happened in Milwaukee, but if it did the police department is trying to use the media as the scapegoat.

And when you contact the family, it's not just about getting them to talk. Man found dead doesn't mean a whole lot until you see his widow and children he leaves behind. If the family agrees to talk for that moment, a viewer can try to feel their pain. I don't force a greiving family to talk to me, if they want to that is fine if they don't that is fine. We will ask for a picture, if they want to provide it that is fine, if not then we will move on. For some families it is theraputic to talk to the media, for those who don't want to I leave them alone and respect their privacy. So as long as we cover homicides and other violent and tragic deaths, the families will be contacted. It's the part of the job i hate the most, but it's also the time when the city's 89th homicide is real. I cry with the family most of the time because I feel for them.

[ March 23, 2007, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: News Lady ]

[Lazlo Toth]

Originally posted by 2:30:


As an aside, I don't know how it makes that much difference how you learn that a loved one has died. They're dead either way.Mom's on the roof.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by cinehead:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 2:30:
I don't know how it makes that much difference how you learn that a loved one has died. They're dead either way.That line speaks volumes about the state of journalism today.</font>[/QUOTE]Bingo. And that's the attitude 2:30 exhibits each and every day here on Medialine.

[TopRamen]

In a matter like this--it's a reporter's duty to make double, even triple sure the next of kin have been notified. Don't assume that because the cops gave you the name that the family has been informed.

[Laughing Angel]

Laz, that is just so WRONG.

[Charlie Brown]

ok, I'm sorry maybe it's because I'm young and naive but I don't believe the police/coroner's/department of defense/whomever should be giving out the names of victims until next of kin has been notified.

As far as double or even triple checking whether or not next of kin has been notified, there's a couple of problems with that. A. It's not our job to do that...our job as journalists is to report the facts, not to be the first to inform families that their lives will not ever be the same and B. how exactly is that conversation with the next of kin going to go?

Let's assume that you do contact the next of kin to see if they know that their family member has been in a horrific accident. Do you identify yourself by your name and station affiliation? Because if you do, they're immediately going to assume that something is awry. Many people who are not in the public eye tend to view the media in the same light that they view emergency officials wherein if you're getting an unexpected phone call from them, something is horribly, horribly wrong.

The only way you can verify if the next of kin have been notified is to ask the authorities point blank yourself. If they have, go ahead and ask questions of the family. If not...well I guess it all depends on what your ND/producer tells you to do next.

[Another side]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aphia:
Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air..Why?

How is bothering a grieving family "newsworthy"? Are you expecting them to say something out of the ordinary, like "yeah, we pretty much expected he'd get shot in the head one day, and quite frankly he had it coming to him."

THIS is why the bottom feeders of local news sully the reputation of the industry as a whole for the rest of us.</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely. Local yokels should take their lead from the nets and the reverent, respectful way they handle the deaths of people in THEIR world -- Nicole Smith, for example.

As to the topic at hand, it's my guess the police chief was just pissed and embarrassed because when he/she finally got around to calling the wife 4-1/2 hours after her husband's death,the wife probably said something like, "We know ... Why didn't YOU tell us sooner?"

[aphia]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aphia:
Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air..Why?

How is bothering a grieving family "newsworthy"? Are you expecting them to say something out of the ordinary, like "yeah, we pretty much expected he'd get shot in the head one day, and quite frankly he had it coming to him."

THIS is why the bottom feeders of local news sully the reputation of the industry as a whole for the rest of us.</font>[/QUOTE]Because we're local-- Thats why bothering the grieving family is news worthy.. Because a homicide isn't just a number to us, we tell the story. We talk to the grieving family to find out "who" was killed. We talk to the grieving family to find out "Who" lived. We talk to the grieving family to find out "Who" was left behind. We talk to the grieving family because we are local. We tell the stories of our neighbors and our families and our friends.

Local Bottom feeder.

[aphia]

Originally posted by Mockingbird Peeps:
No it isn't, that's just cheap rationalization. Stop being the tool reporter on Die Hard.

Look at it this way: a year from now, nobody is going to care who got the name of the victims in the double shooting on the air first.

A year from now, the family of the victims will definitely remember the arsehole station reporter that called and bluntly told them their loved one was dead, and then asked for an interview.

When someone loses someone, they want to be angry. Give them a good reason, and you have a negative PR machine running around 24/7 talking about the dicks at Channel Z.

Why people haven't grasped this simple and basic fact in more than a half century of TV journalism is beyond me.I work in a city that has seen the homicide rate eclipse the previous record two years in row... I've spoken to a lot of grieving families... most know their loved one was involved in crime and murdered because of it. But most if not all that I can remember have been greatful for the opportunity to present a somewhat human reclection of a loved one who we may only have had a mug shot of.

Most I have spoken to have actually said thank you.

A year from now they may not remember whose air they were on, but I do hope they remember that it was me who spoke to them at a very difficult time... It means I have done my job well with geniune human courtesy and decency.

[Another side]

A year from now, many of them will be watching the dub of your story they asked you to provide.

[2:30]

There are those who actually cover stories, and those who criticize those who do. Perhaps they'd do better in PR.

Oh, wait...some of them already have tried that.

[Bureau Chief]

Originally posted by 2:30:
There are those who actually cover stories, and those who criticize those who do. Perhaps they'd do better in PR.

Oh, wait...some of them already have tried that.Then there are those that still know how to do the job without doing something as low as this. Ms. Gerrish had better not ever apply to my shop for a job. There used to be something called "professional ethics" and I think that nowadays they must not teach those in high school journalism class. Perhaps Gerrish and Berra are better suited for a position at the National Enquirer. There simply is not excuse for this to have occurred. Just shows you what the race for ratings will do to you.

[ March 23, 2007, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Bureau Chief ]

[elvez]

And you play that game too...

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by aphia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aphia:
Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air..Why?

How is bothering a grieving family "newsworthy"? Are you expecting them to say something out of the ordinary, like "yeah, we pretty much expected he'd get shot in the head one day, and quite frankly he had it coming to him."

THIS is why the bottom feeders of local news sully the reputation of the industry as a whole for the rest of us.</font>[/QUOTE]Because we're local-- Thats why bothering the grieving family is news worthy.. Because a homicide isn't just a number to us, we tell the story. We talk to the grieving family to find out "who" was killed. We talk to the grieving family to find out "Who" lived. We talk to the grieving family to find out "Who" was left behind. We talk to the grieving family because we are local. We tell the stories of our neighbors and our families and our friends.

Local Bottom feeder.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it's because you're LAZY, not local.

Police blotter news is the quickest, easiest, and of course LAZIEST way to fill a newscast.

"In-depth" coverage of a murder serves no one. It affects no one, aside from the people directly involved, who already know more about the murder than the voiceovermodelwithamic will ever "uncover".

You should focus your newsgathering resources on issues and events that affect your entire viewing audience. Of course, that might require a bit of sweat and legwork. Perhaps your newsroom isn't up to it.

[2:30]

While I'd agree that many crime stories are used simply to fill a newscast, Matt, if you don't think a guy getting shot and killed in a gas station is news in a medium market, you're out of touch.

It would even be news in NYC.

[Diplomat]

I think what Matt is saying is to report on the murder but not to provide all the in-depth coverage.

I do agree that police blotter "journalism" is lazy. In one newsroom I worked in, many on the staff seemed to function as an extension of the police department's PR office. Disgraceful.

[Focker]

Check out this blog:
http://cityweeklymediawatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/former-omaha-anchor-in-hot-water-in.html

It's written for one of the newspapers by a friend of mine in Omaha, where Courtny used to work. Check out the comments (mine's #4).

[aphia]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aphia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aphia:
Tough call here.... we all have to make the call to relatives for comment, and we are all trying to be first to have the obvious family statement on air..Why?

How is bothering a grieving family "newsworthy"? Are you expecting them to say something out of the ordinary, like "yeah, we pretty much expected he'd get shot in the head one day, and quite frankly he had it coming to him."

THIS is why the bottom feeders of local news sully the reputation of the industry as a whole for the rest of us.</font>[/QUOTE]Because we're local-- Thats why bothering the grieving family is news worthy.. Because a homicide isn't just a number to us, we tell the story. We talk to the grieving family to find out "who" was killed. We talk to the grieving family to find out "Who" lived. We talk to the grieving family to find out "Who" was left behind. We talk to the grieving family because we are local. We tell the stories of our neighbors and our families and our friends.

Local Bottom feeder.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it's because you're LAZY, not local.

Police blotter news is the quickest, easiest, and of course LAZIEST way to fill a newscast.

"In-depth" coverage of a murder serves no one. It affects no one, aside from the people directly involved, who already know more about the murder than the voiceovermodelwithamic will ever "uncover".

You should focus your newsgathering resources on issues and events that affect your entire viewing audience. Of course, that might require a bit of sweat and legwork. Perhaps your newsroom isn't up to it.</font>[/QUOTE]Matt:

I think we are digressing, so this will be my last comment on the subject, and I will respect your right to dissagree.

In a city where urban murder rates are sky rocketing... There is a certainly a story behind "the why" that goes way beyond police blotter journalism. --- and continuing to develop local contacts from the family of a murder victim... posible suspects.... or the next story and even series about the devestation that urban violence leaves behind can impact an entire community and deffinatly cast a wider reach than just the imediate parties involved. A rising murder rate equals deteriorating schools... equals falling realestate prices...equals urban decay... equals declining population ...equals lowered quality of life... equals political debate over police effectiveness and brutality... equals city hall political campaigns... equals debate over drug addiction and prevention... equals a story about lagging social services...but digging day in and day out, to draw those type of larger issue stories from one homicide is by no means the job of a lazy reporter.... its the job of a journalist invested in the local community he calls home.


But that is a local story...

and if you are a local news director who dosen't want a reporter/anchor who is able to make that call and follow up to try develop something from this, then your right, I don't want to work for you.

[RadioLongAgo]

I could be wrong, and often I am, but I don't think the 4 1/2 gap is terribly bad. I known of investigations where photography and investigation had to take place before a wallet or id could be retrieved. Sometimes people don't have any identification on them. Sometimes people bear little resemblance to a license photo taken years before. Early on, the cops may know pretty well who the victim is, but you have to make sure...
Just a note from the board Funeral Director.
Again, could be wrong...

[Bandit '07]

Here's a link to the TMJ web site and a story on the victim. Didn't see any reference to the dust up with the police ...

WTMJ Web Page (http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/6648647.html)

[TopRamen]

Originally posted by Charlie Brown:
ok, I'm sorry maybe it's because I'm young and naive but I don't believe the police/coroner's/department of defense/whomever should be giving out the names of victims until next of kin has been notified.

As far as double or even triple checking whether or not next of kin has been notified, there's a couple of problems with that. A. It's not our job to do that...our job as journalists is to report the facts, not to be the first to inform families that their lives will not ever be the same and B. how exactly is that conversation with the next of kin going to go?

Let's assume that you do contact the next of kin to see if they know that their family member has been in a horrific accident. Do you identify yourself by your name and station affiliation? Because if you do, they're immediately going to assume that something is awry. Many people who are not in the public eye tend to view the media in the same light that they view emergency officials wherein if you're getting an unexpected phone call from them, something is horribly, horribly wrong.

The only way you can verify if the next of kin have been notified is to ask the authorities point blank yourself. If they have, go ahead and ask questions of the family. If not...well I guess it all depends on what your ND/producer tells you to do next.Let me rephrase, since you misunderstood my post to mean that it's the reporter's job to inform the family... nope... it's the reporter's job to make sure the notifiacation has been made before they run over to someone's house or even call and "accidentally" announce it. I am just saying, it may help to communicate with police and ask one question on scene "has the fam been notified?" Really hard.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by 2:30:
There are those who actually cover stories, and those who criticize those who do. Perhaps they'd do better in PR.

Oh, wait...some of them already have tried that.HA! This from a producer who doesn't stray outside her climate-controlled cubicle each day ... that actually made me laugh out loud.

And I love the quote from the news director: "We were put in the position of notifying ... " Uh, no you weren't. You put YOURSELF in that position by failing to check 1) whether you had the right identification and 2) whether the family had been notified already. 4 1/2 hours, as anyone with more than 6 months of news experience under their belt would know, is not an unusually long period of time.

[Chief]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 2:30:
There are those who actually cover stories, and those who criticize those who do. Perhaps they'd do better in PR.

Oh, wait...some of them already have tried that.You put YOURSELF in that position by failing to check 1) whether you had the right identification and 2) whether the family had been notified already. 4 1/2 hours, as anyone with more than 6 months of news experience under their belt would know, is not an unusually long period of time.</font>[/QUOTE]Not unusually long, but long enough to believe in all honesty that police would certainly have performed an easy and essential task.

If you've been in journalism longer than 6 months, it's probably happened to you.

Unless of course you are content to sit back and wait on the news release, which is my guess.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by Chief:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 2:30:
There are those who actually cover stories, and those who criticize those who do. Perhaps they'd do better in PR.

Oh, wait...some of them already have tried that.You put YOURSELF in that position by failing to check 1) whether you had the right identification and 2) whether the family had been notified already. 4 1/2 hours, as anyone with more than 6 months of news experience under their belt would know, is not an unusually long period of time.</font>[/QUOTE]Not unusually long, but long enough to believe in all honesty that police would certainly have performed an easy and essential task.

If you've been in journalism longer than 6 months, it's probably happened to you.

Unless of course you are content to sit back and wait on the news release, which is my guess.</font>[/QUOTE]So you agree it's not unusual to take longer than that, then you argue that they still should have notified the family already. Okay. Even if the reporter figures 'well, I'm sure they've had plenty of time to make notification', shouldn't she still have erred on the side of caution and CHECKED WITH THE COPS FIRST so as not to create a situation like this? If you've been in this business long enough (and shall I hazard a guess as to your own longevity?), you know that as much as we think we know what's going on, because golly, we've covered stories like this hundreds of times before, there is ALWAYS a chance that things aren't quite what they seem. And rather than a) provide inaccurate information to our viewers, or b) preempt the cops by calling a victim's family, we DOUBLE CHECK THINGS FIRST. It's really not that hard to understand, is it?

[photog78]

I love the part of the article where the news director explains that tracing a license plate is one way to find an identity. Except if the person driving the car is a relative and not the person the car/truck belongs to. I bet that wasn't even a thought that day at WTMJ 4.

[Lazlo Toth]

I have never been in the position of being the one to break such news to a family. I have, of course, interviewed many family members shortly after someone's death. I try to be sensitive. I try to make sure they understand they don't have to to talk to me. And I try to give them a chance to tell viewers what kind of person it was who died so the victim is not just another number on the murder meter.

That said, I would have problems from two different directions informing the family of someone's death.

From a moral aspect, it's not my job and I'm not the person best equipped to do it.

From a practical aspect, I might be wrong. The cops sometimes take a long time in order to make sure they're not wrong. They have a lot more resources to insure they're correct .. finger print data bases, access to dental records, etc.

I would rather just wait until it's official and then proceed. I don't see much to be gained, and a lot to be lost, by doing it otherwise,

[Focker]

Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
I would rather just wait until it's official and then proceed. I don't see much to be gained, and a lot to be lost, by doing it otherwise,You must not have worked in a newsroom where the news director b!tches you out for not having the family when the other station does.

Now, I'm not defending Courtny, nor do I agree with what she did. I'm just saying there's some bosses out there who say the thing to be gained is ratings, and therefore more $$ for the stations that we as reporters don't see.

[Lazlo Toth]

I understand your point. But my argument to the news director or GM is that ratings are built over time by earning the trust of the viewer. If the viewer thinks you run a slimy operation by getting your name in the paper for informing the family of the death of a loved one, you will lose viewers.

And you're right, I've never had to work for a news director like that. I've had the good fortune to work for some powerhouse stations that became that way by doing quality news and earning the respect of the audience.

Part of doing that was an internal culture that eschewed the kind of behavior that leads to this kind of fiasco.

[Focker]

I wholeheartedly agree, Lazlo. Unfortunately, when I was a reporter, I was never in the ND's good graces that I could speak freely and he'd take my suggestion seriously. I never felt like an "equal" in terms of being a journalist with him. Of course, he had his favorites who could talk to him like that. And I knew him longer than most. Most of the time it was, "I have more experience than you. Doesn't matter what you think." It was never blatantly said like that, but I got the idea. I always felt that if I didn't, I'd be out of a job basically.

[ March 26, 2007, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Focker ]

[JoinUsForCake]

It's completely unprofessional and out of bounds for a reporter to play "informer" in this way. Isn't this Journalism 101? graemlins/face_banghead.gif

[Murrow]

So you think Ms. Gerrish is okay here- I agree with those of you that say in a year no one will remember who broke the name- but it will always be dabated, esp on line, what she did.

How did she get the name? it was sourced then she SHOULD HAVE ASKED DOES THE FAMILY KNOW???? please a little common decency is not that hard to pull off. I work in an area where murders are plenty- and have been doing this for more than 10 years- I get lots of info i'm not supposed to have but have NEVER told a family thier brother, sister, mother unlce is dead... this is not something that can be explaned in Bills little JSONLINE statement

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by JoinUsForCake:
It's completely unprofessional and out of bounds for a reporter to play "informer" in this way. Isn't this Journalism 101? graemlins/face_banghead.gif I concur wholeheartedly.

[Pink]

Sadly in San Antonio there is a male reporter who has done this sort of crap multiple times and he thinks it's cute. In one case he found out the wife of murdered convenience store clerk lived just around the corner and decided to take it upon himself to inform her of the death just minutes after it occurred. You know who you are and you're a despicable human being.

[Sir Dropham Pants]

I'd love to hear from someone who's from Milwaukee and knows more about what really happened. We're all taking what the police say as gospel here. Not saying the reporter was right, but what if (gasp) the cops aren't telling the whole story. Is there anyone from TMJ or the other stations who know what's going on? Is the reporter still out reporting? Is there still local controversy about this?

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Murrow:
So you think Ms. Gerrish is okay here- I agree with those of you that say in a year no one will remember who broke the name- but it will always be dabated, esp on line, what she did.

How did she get the name? it was sourced then she SHOULD HAVE ASKED DOES THE FAMILY KNOW???? please a little common decency is not that hard to pull off. I work in an area where murders are plenty- and have been doing this for more than 10 years- I get lots of info i'm not supposed to have but have NEVER told a family thier brother, sister, mother unlce is dead... this is not something that can be explaned in Bills little JSONLINE statementViewers may not remember. But the family who was so casually told of their loved one's death by this reporter will ALWAYS remember. And if this reporter has a conscience--which appears doubtful--it is something she'll have to live with for the rest of her life.

[ZuZu's Petals]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
[QUOTE] if this reporter has a conscience--which appears doubtful--it is something she'll have to live with for the rest of her life.Come on now. Don't throw that crap around.

Courtny has a conscience. She's a good person and a fine reporter.
You're right. She will have to live with this the rest of her life. I'm sure we've all been a position we regret - in this industry.

I don't know the facts of the situation but I'm sure she was following the expectations of the newsroom she works in now. That's the sad reality of the situation.

I remember going from a news market in which we rarely talked to victims' families... certainly not within a 24 hour window... to a market where you knock on the door before the blood is dry. I finally said i wouldn't do it any more. I have to live with myself - and I don't want to be that person.

[Poo(h)]

Why am I not surprised?

I worked in Milwaukee, back when Phillip Arreola was the police chief. That department had problems back then, and obviously still does now.

This, after all, is the police force that gave us naked cops dancing at The Tracks Bar, Lawrencia Bembenek, and the same police force that handed Konerak Sinthasomphone back to Jeffrey Dahmer. Why am I not surprised they can't get a vic's family notified in four and a half hours?

Milwaukee's PD has never had it together.

And apparently, they still don't.

As for "ruining your station's rep" with the Milwaukee Fuzz, I wouldn't care much. They'll screw something else up.

Milwaukee can be a nice town. But its police force is pure Mayberry.

[Clever Login Name]

HEY!?!

http://www.nationalmcmuseum.org/images/product/56-64124.jpg

[Diplomat]

ZuZu, I'm assuming you know this woman to be a decent person, so I'll trust you and agree that she is. But I hope she will do something to atone for her mistake. Yes, mistakes do happen, but this was very unfortunate and people were hurt as a result. I still say the family will always remember how they were told and it will hurt them for a long time.

[Tripe Face]

I have a question for you folks who say the station should have called the police and asked if the family had been notified.

What makes you think that would have done ANY good?

These are cops we are talking about. Several scenerios come to mind that tell me that would be a waste of time.

#1 Police have notified the family, but don't bother to tell the PIO. So the PIO says "no"

#2 Police have notified, and have told the PIO... but the PIO is an a$$hole and still says "No" (happens all the time, those who can work a beat, those who can't stay back and answer calls from the media)

#3 Police have notified, but have concocted some reason why they don't think the media should know. They say "No"

#4 Police haven't notified, but PIO thinks they have and is too lazy to double check so the PIO says "go ahead we've notified." Your station gets burned anyway.

Of course, some police might actually want to be helpful and tell you when they've notified the family, but those cases a few and far between in my experience.

They gain nothing in this case by helping the media. So the PIO and the rest of the force will do nothing to help the media.

Now, if the cops wanted free publicity to help solve a case, that PIO would be working faster than Superman trying to save Lois Lane from an earthquake.

Bottomline, don't depend on the cops. News Directors should hire an expert for a one day seminar for all the reporters/producers/desk people in your shop on how to make those first contacts with family members of victims. Develop a standard protocol that can be applied whether the authorities have notified the family or not. Use it.

I'll bet a group called "Parents of Murdered Children" could help you find an expert on grief issues. They are based in Cincinnati.

[Another side]

I think we're getting a little over-dramatic.

The woman didn't lie or plagarize or drive her car into a building in a drunken stupor. She didn't beat up her elderly mother, or wrongfully say on air someone was guilty of crime when she should have said "not" guilty. She didn't steal money from the poor and gamble it away on the Vegas dice tables. She didn't bathe her baby in boiling water or destroy all station's files in anticipation of getting fired.

All she did was accidentally put herself in a position that had her notifying next of kin. It was an accident. It wasn't something that calls into quetion her conscience, or something she needs to "atone" for. It was an honest mistake, and in the greater scheme of things, not a very big one, at that. It happens.

[2:30]

Correct.

[Diplomat]

AS, it's not big to us. It's big to the family who was told in this way. I would be angry to find out like this family did and I've a feeling you would as well.

[ewink]

Four and a half hours seems kind of quick. Most homicides I have been on, if the victim is DRT the coroner doesn't show up for quite a while. Like was said, Homicide and CSIs have to take a billion pictures, and process for evidence.

I know it's not like this in all areas, but in most places it's the coroner's job, not the police's job, to notify next of kin.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
AS, it's not big to us. It's big to the family who was told in this way. I would be angry to find out like this family did and I've a feeling you would as well.Perhaps. But angry at whom? Certainly not the reporter -- at least she told me and now I know. There's no reason for me to be mad at her.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diplomat:
AS, it's not big to us. It's big to the family who was told in this way. I would be angry to find out like this family did and I've a feeling you would as well.Perhaps. But angry at whom? Certainly not the reporter -- at least she told me and now I know. There's no reason for me to be mad at her.</font>[/QUOTE]I have to laugh at all the people who scream about compassion all the time and are showing no regard for this family.

A lot of people would rather hear bad news from someone who is trained to do this--not from a reporter who probably doesn't give a rat's ass about the people. The reporter is there for one reason only--to get a story. Most police departments have some sort of training for their officers to do this.

I can guarantee you that if a reporter showed up at my house telling me a loved one died, I'd tell them to get the hell out of there. It is NOT their job to play informant.

[ March 28, 2007, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Diplomat ]

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by ewink:
Four and a half hours seems kind of quick. Most homicides I have been on, if the victim is DRT the coroner doesn't show up for quite a while. Like was said, Homicide and CSIs have to take a billion pictures, and process for evidence.

I know it's not like this in all areas, but in most places it's the coroner's job, not the police's job, to notify next of kin.In our city, the police usually do it. And thank God they do. The coroner is an inconsiderate bastard who has been in hot water for selling video of autopsies to reality shows without the permission of affected families. Unfortunately, he has gotten away with it.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
I can guarantee you that if a reporter showed up at my house telling me a loved one died, I'd tell them to get the hell out of there. It is NOT their job to play informant.And then what? Go sit by the phone and wait for the proper authorities to call?

I believe my reaction would be to ask them to tell me what they know, and to then check it out. I can argue about "whose job it was" to notify me later. Getting mad at the reporter doesn't make any sense.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diplomat:
I can guarantee you that if a reporter showed up at my house telling me a loved one died, I'd tell them to get the hell out of there. It is NOT their job to play informant.And then what? Go sit by the phone and wait for the proper authorities to call?

I believe my reaction would be to ask them to tell me what they know, and to then check it out. I can argue about "whose job it was" to notify me later. Getting mad at the reporter doesn't make any sense.</font>[/QUOTE]I know too many reporters who would've shown up at the door with cameras rolling, ready to get the reaction of someone being told.

Being told that a loved one has died should be done in private by someone who at least has a modicum of compassion for the people they're about to tell. I remember each of the people who told me my grandparents and parents died, and they did it in private and in a kind way. I knew they cared.

[ March 28, 2007, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Diplomat ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diplomat:
I can guarantee you that if a reporter showed up at my house telling me a loved one died, I'd tell them to get the hell out of there. It is NOT their job to play informant.And then what? Go sit by the phone and wait for the proper authorities to call?

I believe my reaction would be to ask them to tell me what they know, and to then check it out. I can argue about "whose job it was" to notify me later. Getting mad at the reporter doesn't make any sense.</font>[/QUOTE]I know too many reporters who would've shown up at the door with cameras rolling, ready to get the reaction of someone being told.

Being told that a loved one has died should be done in private by someone who at least has a modicum of compassion for the people they're about to tell. I remember each of the people who told me my grandparents and parents died, and they did it in private and in a kind way. I knew they cared.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I don't.

But keep in mind ... the reporter in this story called the house; she didn't show up "with cameras rolling." So why would you be mad at her?

[Diplomat]

Because it was not her place to do this.

[Another side]

OK.

[newz2me]

"Perhaps. But angry at whom? Certainly not the reporter -- at least she told me and now I know. There's no reason for me to be mad at her".

Ever hear the saying "Don't kill the messenger"? When people experience traumatic grief, they tend to lash out at the nearest victim. That unfortunately, fair or not, would be you. First there's denial("no you must be wrong"), followed by anger ("how did this happen", "who's responsible")you naturally don't have all the answers. You're not privy to the investigation, all you have is a plate number matching a supposed victim. All you've done is make a bad situation worse.
This is why even if you know who the victim is, you show some impulse control and hold back.

[ March 28, 2007, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: newz2me ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by newz2me:
"Perhaps. But angry at whom? Certainly not the reporter -- at least she told me and now I know. There's no reason for me to be mad at her".

Ever hear the saying "Don't kill the messenger"? When people experience traumatic grief, they tend to lash out at the nearest victim. That unfortunately, fair or not, would be you. First there's denial("no you must be wrong"), followed by anger ("how did this happen", "who's responsible")you naturally don't have all the answers. You're not privy to the investigation, all you have is a plate number matching a supposed victim. All you've done is make a bad situation worse.
This is why even if you know who the victim is, you show some impulse control and hold back.You'rre preaching to the choir. Pretty much everyone agrees with that.