Guest Sundancefisher Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home Since when as a society do we allow the media to butt into such a sad and personal situation like that with a critically ill child. I am utterly flabbergasted that the media outlets are continuing to make this a news story. This is not a public story...no one asked for this yet they (the media) have glommed on like some sick pathetic psychopathic nutball. To many times the media makes a story where this is not one or have no right making one. Who can we complain to about such poor journalism? IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest girlsfishtoo Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Yes it is so very sad that this is what our society has become... This is an extremely sad time for all involved, and they should not have to be dealing with the "Media" on top of this difficult situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhurt Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I do not disagree with what you are saying, but on the flip side what you are talking about is censorship. Freedom of speech allows anyone to say whatever they want (As long as it does not violate the human rights act), if you do not like it don;t read it. I find the media is full of half truths and is full of inacurate information. Just my two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Freedom of speech? How about when that steps on the toes of your right to privacy? I can say this, if that were my child they were talking about there would be no harsh words for the media I would find the reporter and break his jaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I do not disagree with what you are saying, but on the flip side what you are talking about is censorship. Freedom of speech allows anyone to say whatever they want (As long as it does not violate the human rights act), if you do not like it don;t read it. I find the media is full of half truths and is full of inacurate information. Just my two cents. Self policing should be easy for media outlets except they apparently have no morals. I sent a scathing letter to a tv station in Calgary once for putting children on TV saying how much they missed their little friend who got murdered. That is not news but rather exploitation of children. Insensitive idiots in the media will cater to the lowest levels of taste I suppose if they think there are ratings to be had. I just don't see the moral value or the informational value in a lot of what they deem news worthy stories. The manufacturing of stories is just morally wrong and it would be nice to see some good judgement for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weedy1 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 For those interested: Charles Adler / Jason Wallace Interview Go here: http://www.cjob.com/StationShared/AudioVault.aspx Choose tues April 7th Choose 3pm Forward Media Player to 33:30 The story by Michele Mandel: http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/...035536-sun.html I'll reserve comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynnF Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I don't advocate anyone sharing these types of personal details with the world - especially when it involves innnocent children and, in this case, young babies who are desperately ill and/or dying. BUT the father brought it to the media - he sought them out and he's the one readily giving them interviews. He was told by doctors to can it and he chooses not to and actually got into a fight with a doctor over all this. Who knows why he is doing this, but he is the sole reason it's in the papers and the fallout and repercussions are his to bear when all is said and done. In these types of situations I always look for something good that can come from this. I'm struggling with this particular story - haven't found anything good yet or what could stand to be gained here. The thing that really disturbed me about the globe article is that when I went to pick up the Globe that was by the elevator yesterday morning, as it was lying on the floor, all I saw was a picture of the baby and the line "the baby that won't die"....until I unfolded it and read the whole headline. But at first glance I thought "what an absolutely horrible headline for the Globe to print". They might have laid it out better because at first glance that's what everyone sees. And the problem I have is that I think that's intentional on their part to sell more papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhurt Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Self policing should be easy for media outlets except they apparently have no morals. I sent a scathing letter to a tv station in Calgary once for putting children on TV saying how much they missed their little friend who got murdered. That is not news but rather exploitation of children. Insensitive idiots in the media will cater to the lowest levels of taste I suppose if they think there are ratings to be had. I just don't see the moral value or the informational value in a lot of what they deem news worthy stories. The manufacturing of stories is just morally wrong and it would be nice to see some good judgement for once. So like Lynn said, The father went to the media and told them his story and the media is the bad guys? Also there is a old sayin, Bad news is good news. I think what the father wanted was to bring some public awareness to what he is going through. Also what about the countless other stories about sad things that has happened to children. For example, Baby Jacob, the one that was born blind and the parents were raising money so they could go to china and get some brain stem treatment (don't know everything about what needed to be done) and the positive thing about this is that the mother came into my store not to long ago to make thank you cards for the people that donated the money and I asked her how baby jacob was doing and she was so happy because ther son could make out shapes. Or howabout the crazies who have gone into schools and killed children in a killing spree? Just my thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynnF Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 So like Lynn said, The father went to the media and told them his story and the media is the bad guys? Also there is a old sayin, Bad news is good news. I think what the father wanted was to bring some public awareness to what he is going through. Also what about the countless other stories about sad things that has happened to children. For example, Baby Jacob, the one that was born blind and the parents were raising money so they could go to china and get some brain stem treatment (don't know everything about what needed to be done) and the positive thing about this is that the mother came into my store not to long ago to make thank you cards for the people that donated the money and I asked her how baby jacob was doing and she was so happy because ther son could make out shapes. Or howabout the crazies who have gone into schools and killed children in a killing spree? Just my thoughts My neighbour behind me is good friends with Jakob's mom and she actually particpated in the "shaving the head" benefit for him and helped out alot with the fundraiser to send him to China. The good news about him is that the parents had a sibling (brother) whose cord blood was frozen and whose stem cells will be used in Jakob's treatment. Jakob has shown tremendous and, almost unbelievable, progress and is already a candidate for the next stage of treatment. They decided to share their plight in the media because they were really trying to get the message out about how stem cell research is so valuable and about how legislation blocking it is so detrimental. Truly their media story had tons of merit and was absolutely appropriate and beneficial - I would have done the same thing. The good news is that with Obama's stance on this issue they may well be travelling just to the States for Jakob's next treatment instead of all the way to China. I say bravo to them. I am still searching for how this particular case of the two babies will benefit from media exposure. I think the father is trying to make sure in every way possible that this other little baby gets his daughter's organs and that by going to the media it will help with that. I can't find any other reason why he would be doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Sometimes when you are under severe emotional distress you do not make good judgment calls...hence the father doing what he has done. Purely a knee jerk emotional strike to try and make a difference in his child's situation and yet us all standing back sees the futility and the silliness behind the media involvement. The media jumps on these things way to often. In my Utopian world...the media searches out happy stories... The media has full blame IMHO as they are the last defense against poor journalism and they should have enough unbiased brains around to make the right decision. Where is that bald guy on Mary Tyler Moore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhurt Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 If the media was unbiase then they would publish anything regardless to what it is. Here is what the dictonary had to say about unbiased un·bi·ased Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈbī-əst\ Function: adjective Date: 1607 1: free from bias ; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair <an unbiased opinion> Also if you do not like what the media is doing then why read it? Looks like to me IMHO your just looking for something to cry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 If the media was unbiase then they would publish anything regardless to what it is. Here is what the dictonary had to say about unbiased un·bi·ased Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈbī-əst\ Function: adjective Date: 1607 1: free from bias ; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair <an unbiased opinion> Also if you do not like what the media is doing then why read it? Looks like to me IMHO your just looking for something to cry about. Hey...why not bitch when the rivers are muddy... Plus discussions are always interesting. So many different points of view on forums like this. And...ummm... I don't cry even when ripping a hook from my delicate hand... except ummm...I cry when the wife says I can't go fishing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 The media is not a thing. It has no collective will, opinion, or objective. It is a collection of people working for a bunch of different companies providing what they think the people want. As long as people clamor for this type of story, the media will supply it. But blaming the media is like blaming "them", ie, pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 The media is not a thing. It has no collective will, opinion, or objective. It is a collection of people working for a bunch of different companies providing what they think the people want. As long as people clamor for this type of story, the media will supply it. But blaming the media is like blaming "them", ie, pointless. do you not believe that the media can make a story where this is not one? Sensationalistic journalism? Take global warming for instance... Sky is falling mentality. I have personally seen fabricated stories. In this instance...the only printed it cause they figured it would make a story in their opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 do you not believe that the media can make a story where this is not one? Sensationalistic journalism? Take global warming for instance... Sky is falling mentality. I have personally seen fabricated stories. In this instance...the only printed it cause they figured it would make a story in their opinion I'm not going to get into a global warming debate with you. It's pointless for both of us. I trust your sources just as much as you trust mine. Do I think the media can fabricate a story where there isn't one? Again, there is no "thing" as the media. Do I think a member of the media can? Well of course. People will do things to get ahead in every industry. Usually they are found out, sometimes they are not. A better question is do I think this story is a case of a story made up where there isn't one? I'm not all that familiar with the particulars other than there are two girls, one needs a heart I think and the donor is hanging on when her doctors did not think she would. I'm not even sure who's father went to the media (or I should say a member of the media) with this. A story was probably then put out, interest was generated, and the story spiraled out of control as these things are prone to do. So there is definitely a story there. Do I think it is appropriate? No, I don't. But I don't know what you do about it. If enough people are interested then someone will keep the story out in the open. If interest wanes, then the story will run it's course. The "media" is a reflection of society, not the other way around. For the most part the various main stream outlets provide an incredibly valuable service. Do they over sensationalize things? Well of course. And people eat it up. Who's fault is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I'm not going to get into a global warming debate with you. It's pointless for both of us. I trust your sources just as much as you trust mine. Do I think the media can fabricate a story where there isn't one? Again, there is no "thing" as the media. Do I think a member of the media can? Well of course. People will do things to get ahead in every industry. Usually they are found out, sometimes they are not. A better question is do I think this story is a case of a story made up where there isn't one? I'm not all that familiar with the particulars other than there are two girls, one needs a heart I think and the donor is hanging on when her doctors did not think she would. I'm not even sure who's father went to the media (or I should say a member of the media) with this. A story was probably then put out, interest was generated, and the story spiraled out of control as these things are prone to do. So there is definitely a story there. Do I think it is appropriate? No, I don't. But I don't know what you do about it. If enough people are interested then someone will keep the story out in the open. If interest wanes, then the story will run it's course. The "media" is a reflection of society, not the other way around. For the most part the various main stream outlets provide an incredibly valuable service. Do they over sensationalize things? Well of course. And people eat it up. Who's fault is that? I think the media or as you put it individual journalists or media outlet are not a reflection of society anymore but rather a reflection of greed. They are not looking for truth...they are not looking for a valuable story to help people...they are not looking to lead or show us a reflection of society...but rather they are an outlet for a new kind of greed. They write what sells, what makes money. The majority of journalists no longer work with integrity but rather work for a paycheck. Do I blame the individual journalists? No...I can not fault someone for stretching the truth or inventing a story just to earn and income and support their family whether they be a journalist or scientist. However on a more global point...the media in general has made a bed and are sleeping in it day and night now. CNN started the fact journalism stories and other outlets just carried on following much the same format. I believe the general media is trying to lead society rather than reflect it now. They are no longer bipartisan. They are no longer showing all points of view. They are no longer just stating facts but all to often are calling things facts when they are not. I appreciate your point of view but I see the media differently than you. I guess I think they have to take some responsibility for their actions rather then give them free rein. Not censored but responsible to those they are reporting on and reporting to. When they report in detail on horrendous crimes they are helping copy cat crimes. The details they go into are never balanced with the positives in society. How many people say they don't want to watch the news or read the paper cause it is just to depressing. There are tons of positive stories out there but in some board room it was decided it is not news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.