A reporter in Phoenix was covering a story about flooding when he and the cameraman stumbled across a woman screaming for help.
So the reporter helped her. And the cameraman shot the rescue. Then they aired that on the news.
Did the reporter do something heroic and thus become newsworthy? Or is he simply casting himself as a hero by airing his good deed?
If you had rescued that person, would you have broadcast it?
7 years ago
14 comments:
I would say it depends on the reaction form the person being saved. Although it does make for a good story, it is not completely necessary considering they already had their story concerning the flood. This young woman looks a bit shaken up as well as pissed off that she is being filmed. If I was that reporter and the victim I saved was not comfortable or embarrassed by being rescued on TV, I certainly would not show the footage. Also, this guy looks like a total tool. "But you didn't drown, did you?" Okay sir, that's enough.
After I got past the fact that reporter has douche written all over him, you can't discredit the act. It was a "good deed," but the way it was presented, it seemed like it would be a lot worse than it actually was. I would not have broadcasted it because the story wasn't the reporter saving a woman from 2 foot of water as much as it was the flood. The flood was of much more importance, and that was just a reporter tooting his on whistle, and yeah, no one likes that.
Though I agree that he kind of sucks for asking the woman how she felt that he saved her live, he DID save her life. But there's a difference between being a life saver and saving a life to get recognition. I think just asking the question he asked totally ruined the glory of his actions. Congratulations, you had the honor of letting ME save you. HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Considering a journalist reporting in more extreme conditions may be expected to intervene in the scene they are covering, he definitely had the responsibility as a human being to help that woman any way he possibly could. That being said, it was also pretty insensitive of him to throw a microphone into her face and expect her to offer an interview after such a harrowing circumstance.
In this particular case, the reporter went too far in airing what he had done. Yes, it was brave and heroic of him to save that woman but there wasn't much purpose in airing that. What relevance did that have with the bigger picture/story? The reporter could have tied in his heroic duty into the main story by mentioning a woman was driving through the flood and was stranded and then he could've shared her thoughts prior, during, and after being saved. But it did seem like the reporter may have been showing off what he had done. Although what he did was brave and noble, was he doing the right thing by saving her? What if while the reporter was saving the woman he had tripped and something had happened to him? Either way, he was pushing the point a little bit and made the woman feel uncomfortable. But if the woman did feel uncomfortable with the spot light, could she have responded by saying "no comment"? I don't know, but one thing is for sure, the reporter did seem like he was out for some recognition for his heroic action. I would not have aired my heroic action. Maybe I would have mentioned that my crew and I had to help her to safety, but I would not air what happened.
I applaud the reporter for graciously helping the woman, but I don't consider it to be newsworthy. The story was about the weather, so I think adding his two cents in about his "heroic rescue" was unnecessary and in a way, conceited. Plus, the woman's interview seemed emotionless and did nothing for the story. The whole idea seemed kind of pointless to air.
I think I would have aired the rescue of the woman and I think it was newsworthy. The reporter was covering the flood situation in that area, and the rescue of this woman was part of that flood situation. Do I consider him a hero, well not really, but the woman being rescued may feel that he was a hero.
Look, it's a great thing that the guy is trying to help save people. That's not in his job description, because he's supposed to be just reporting on what is happening. But there's something about being humble when it comes to being a hero. And there's virtually no way you can achieve that when you're on a newscast and saving someone on live or nearly live TV. That being said, situations differ. This guy just seemed like he wanted to help the poor person out. Is there any way you can criticize that act of kindness (at its face value)?
This is just casting him as a hero, and it is not newsworthy. It should not have aired, i'm not sure why this would have gotten by the producers.
The only way this should have been on the news is if there was actually a daring rescue by someone, that way it would be a true story, and not just a set up shot.
I do not think you should broadcast yourself saving someone's life, unless the event happened on camera unexpectedly. If you go out of your way to present yourself as a hero, you are losing your obligation to report the news. A newscasters job is to tell the truth, not look like the hero and gain publicity. Journalists are simply the story tellers. The fact that the reporte rspent more time getting footage of the "saving" rather than the reporting, says a lot about his motivation in the field.
This guy should read that article "DOUCHEBAG 56 ways to tell if you are one". This is seriously just a joke. If that women couldn't get out of her car she has bigger problems then that weather. This journalist was pretty unprofessional and completely went away from the story. He made the moment about him and not the actual life threatening weather. If I were watching this newscast I would probably change the channel.
This guy really made the news on him whether he meant to or not. He is supposed to report the news but instead, he became a part of it! Unless it's a live feed and it happens in the moment, this should never be published.
The reporter put in the clip of him saving the woman solely to show himself as a hero. While it may be newsworthy considering a life was saved from a horrible situation, I don't believe that was his intention of airing it. He should have stuck to reporting the weather instead of making it about him.
His good deed makes him a hero, and it does making newsworthy. The reporter become part of the story. Since their is video proof too, he can write the story, and interview the woman he saved.
Post a Comment