A SAN DIEGO television reporter did a story from the scene of the wildfires that are ravaging Southern California.
The location of his stand-up: in front of his own destroyed home.
Check out his station's website. It is completely dedicated to providing information about the fires. This is service journalism at it's best.
But was it necessary for the reporter to do a story in front of his own burning home? Is that a cheap way of getting attention, of drawing people's emotions? Wouldn't it be just as powerful hearing from other people (non-journalists) who are suffering? Did the guy have to make himself the story?
The anchor says, "This really brings it home to us."
What about all the other people out there? There are a lot more wealthy people out there with million dollar mansions on the hills who are losing their homes.
In related news: President Bush is hustling to help these people. Apparently, he has learned from the mistakes during Hurricane Katrina.
UPDATE FROM 10/26: San Diego News 8 does a story about their reporter who lost his home to the wildfires:
7 years ago
12 comments:
I think this is both a scam and a true opinion. This reporter is losing everything behind him so he can truly voice his opinions. I'm sure the first thing he thought of wasn't "gee this is a great gimic for more money." Later on though, I think he figured out that it was. The whole news story should not have been just about him, though. He should have went around to his neighbors and spoke with them.
How can the reporter remain objective and give citizens the full story when it's his property that's being destroyed? Something's not right about it. The station could have easily drawn emotion from the audience whether or not the reporter was affected. But, as George always tells us, journalism is a business; the station probably drew more viewers than others because of their appeal to emotion.
I think it had more of an effect because many people tend to see journalists as detached from the story personally. They see them as just reporting the facts as an outside observer. This preception whether true or not could be good becuase it keeps that sense of objectivity journalists are suppose to have. But one thing is for certain, this reporter could not appear objective, he was part of the story and that gave it a totally different presepective. It maybe even made outside people sympathize more becuase of the different role this journalist was playing.
Is he crying? Okay, I am not completely dead on the inside, it sucks that the guy lost his house and his pets. They said the house was beautiful and had a wonderful view, but sadly I don't have much sympathy for rich people. By another bloody mansion and quit crying on the news.
to crystal... thats a little insensitive, regardless as to whether or not he's rich I wouldnt want that to happen to anybody. Money can't replace everthing.
But back to the point, It's an interesting piece, like Paul M said usually journalists are detached from the story. There arent many angles you can take on the story, a natural disaster ruined his house so he told people about it. The only difference is, instead of having him asking a question and having a crying man answer it, he cut out the second person. Interesting and in my opinion well done.
kevin m
What about all the other people out there? There are a lot more wealthy people out there with million dollar mansions on the hills who are losing their homes.
Maybe thattt is the reason George is taking action all of a sudden.
I think that they should have picked a different house. Their's plenty of other homes that they could have gotten with a more objective outcome. It's virtually the same as interviewing yourself. It just isn't fair and objective.
-emily hooper
I think it's perfectly fine to report on his own home. People responding on this post have really been insensitive. No matter how rich people may be, mansions and jacuzzis are damn expensive and people work long and hard to earn material possessions, apparently over 25 years. It's not a gimmick. So consider that there's been a big wild fire and your own home was destroyed in it. How could you not mention it as a reporter? It'd probably be the most honest perspective one could find. I think it's pretty eerie and fake to hear journalists report on death and destruction with no attachment at all because they clearly couldn't care less. And that makes me, the viewer, not care as much.
To Kevin,
Money can't replace everything but don't expect me to feel too sorry for your burnt down mansion when people who cannot afford to replace their homes are still displaced in New Orleans.
No matter if it was a one bedroom apartment or a mansion the point is that a family is out of a place to stay. They no longer have a roof over there head. The journalist is reporting the fire and showing how it is not only affecting others, but has an impact on him too. There is nothing wrong with reporting that. Even if he is rich he still lost what he worked hard for.
Even though there may be a lot of other wealthy people out there what is the point of showing 100 different mansions that are all going to look alike- destroyed. Are you saying it is better to mention that this journalists house was also burnt down, but then show coverage on another mansion burning? At a time like this how much someone has should not have an effect, but people should be more concerned that someone lost everything they hand in the matter of what seems like seconds.
~Brittany
This isn't an issue of comparison. This was an unfortunate event, regardless of the impact of another totally unrelated event. Yeah, it sucks that a bunch of people in New Orleans are displaced, but so are about another million in California, including Larry Himmel.
It also sucks that monks are getting shot in Burma. People are dying at alarming rates in our war. So by that logic, you can't feel empathy for a man who has lost everything he has worked decades to earned simply because he's "rich" and there's always something worse that happened? Then damn, we can't really feel bad for anything, can we?
i dont think their is anything wrong with him doing this story..i actually think its intersting and im sure the people of San Diego do too..they see this
reportereveryday on tv...now they can finally relate to him...sure he was making a ton of money to be able to afford this house but we already know journalism is a business...everything isnt a scam..like they said they have reported on these wildfires for over 25 years..if he is strong enough to report his own house buring down and wants to..that okay...what makes it different from all the other people who lost their homes to the wildfires..
I don't think the anchor did anything wrong. He allows the viewers to understand that he is human to and he is affected by this event. I am sure that the other clips on the website concentrate on the other people he have been damanged by the wildfires. Melissa P.
Post a Comment