Graphic details in our stories

[Bureau Chief]

There is a story out of the DC area tonight that describes a local woman who got crushed by a set of wheels from a tractor trailer...some news websites have gone into details that I thought unneccessary. Not only for our sakes but for the family of the victim too. A woman died in a tragic accident, do we REALLY need to go in to the gory details of how she was decapitated and dismembered before the wheels finally crushed her to about 3 inches wide?? This is of course an exaggeration but is an example of how detailed some of these news reports have become. Do we REALLY need to go into these details? Cant we report the story without having to do this?

[Fargin Icehole]

Do we REALLY need to go into these details? Cant we report the story without having to do this?

We sure can......as soon as sweeps is over.

Sad but true.

[markminn]

And when a station in a different market runs the story, the overly produced, consultant driven newscast sounds like this...

"88 News investigates and we've discovered that the young woman was crushed to the height of 3 inches. (anchor turns to plasma behind her) Take a look at this map. This is where it happened. 88 News has learned that her blood type was A positive, the hardest blood to wash out of the pavement."

[CKMD]

I guess you guys aren't into the whole "offering information" to our "buyers", huh?
I'm not in the business to feel sorry for a dead person's family by offering the public as much information about something as possible.
With that said...it sounds like an "accident" that affected one person. Why run it to begin with?
That's the more important question.

[Bureau Chief]

Well in my tiny market, it certainly would be news. But this happened in DC, where Im very sure that there were other, more newsworthy things going on!
We had a highway crash here a few months ago with a decapitation and other terrible injuries. No matter what argument I presented, we still went into detail about the injuries and I could not think of any reason for it other than to lure viewers in. Same goes with the standard "he was burned beyond recognition" description for fire victims. Unless it directly affects the nature of the story, why include it? A "he died of burns" will do just as well. I think that some of these stories are one reason that the public no longer trust us.

[CKMD]

I would agree if I didn't have web numbers that show the most popular stories are the accident and crime tories on the web where we add all the details that don't fit into the :30 vo.

It's sad, but crime and accidents are what people are reading on the web. These are the same people that complain about gory details at 6PM while they are eating dinner. Or complain that we don't do enough investigations.

We are a station that trends away from random crime and accidents and do investigations...and our website gets the most hits for the accidents and crimes we put on there that we don't put on the web.

While I will agree that inserting how flat the woman became or what was cut off in the accident is a bit over the top, people want to read it, see it, etc. WHy do horror movies like SAW or Hostel do so well? The macabre is a fascination among people....and it's sad.

[wx or not]

Fifteen years ago, I did a story about a young lady who was flattened by a roll of steel that fell off a flatbed truck. I spoke to her family and asked them how much detail they wanted to know. The mother asked that I give out as much detail as possible. She said that, although her daughter's death was hard to bear, it would be worse if others never knew how dangerous following behind a truck can be. She also said that, one day, her grandchildren might want to know exactly what happened, and not read a simple obituary in the paper. I gave her a copy of the tape.

[Sultanosurf]

It's easy to see both sides. It's kind of like how we never reaaly see the explosion scenes when an IED hits in Baghdad. Does it de-sensitize viewers to the impact? Probably.

[The Thrill]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/0/0/e/00ebf1b1ec0b93f3f7ada890d7f2dbd2.jpg

Oops, that's a GRAPHICS mistake. My bad. :withstupid: