A friend sent this to me:
I still disagree. The news channel could've better reiterated the point of the story - that the woman was almost raped and that there is a potential rapist on the loose. I have a hard time believing that news professionals would not be able to predict how the words of the victims would be perceived by the general public. I think it was their duty to provide more seriously-worded context for the content - in addition to the victims' own comments. First-hand accounts are of utmost importance in any journalistic piece and every person involved who wants to tell their story should be able to. However, as professional storytellers, it is WAFF 48's job to give its audience a filter and frame through which to process information. Another j-school example: If a source may have a biased/conflicting motive, let it be known and/or provide an equally-weighted opposing source...Thoughts?
Girl meets media. Girl falls in love. Girl follows love to the Big Apple...
I agree with the reporter...let people of all walks of life speak freely. Sensor no one. Real people in a Real Alabama.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I disagree. One of the most important things I learned in j-school is to only use the source's voice when he/she can tell the story better than the reporter. This foolery clearly does not fall under that category.
ReplyDelete