Edmonton Journal Angers Mourning Parents

[karrie]

The facebook page for the Edmonton Journal currently showcases a war, between the Journal's news team, and the public, over the publication of a photo of a father being held back by police as he tries to get to an accident scene on the highway, where his teenage sons perished in a car wreck.

The family tells the story of the father arriving at the accident scene, with police and media already there, and attempting to reach his children. An Edmonton Journal reporter snapping photos, continued clicking, as he fought to try to reach them, and police attempted to hold him back and advise him against it, already knowing what he would find. According to the family, police even went so far as to yell at the journalist to stop photographing and have some respect. His wife also phoned the paper, angry over the altercation, and demanding that the paper not publish photos of her husband's anguish, in any way shape or form. Despite all that, the photos went into the paper.

It was, by the accounts of many who saw it (I have not), a poignant photo. It's started a heated debate among many online, but has also prompted to Journal to finally, after public uproar, pull the photos.

But was it right?

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=558246530883832&id=554950354546783

https://www.facebook.com/edmontonjournal?hc_location=timeline

 

[Locutus]

A brief response, from Editor in Chief Lucinda Chodan, to today's post (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=558246530883832&id=554950354546783) that mentioned the Journal on the RIP logan and Dalin Torresan page:

Our sympathies go out to the Torresan family in this tragic circumstance. The entire community is diminished by the deaths of these vibrant young men.

However such a tragic incident is also a matter of public interest, which is why we often publish photographs of accidents in print and online.

There seem to be some misunderstandings about the circumstances surrounding the photographs the Journal published. The RCMP never asked us not to take photographs and we did not defy such an order.

We were on the scene with the police, as we often are, and printed one photograph on an inside page of the Journal in which the only faces visible were those of police officers. A similar photograph appeared on the front page of another Edmonton daily newspaper and in newscasts. There were three photographs on our website. They do not show any identifiable people except RCMP officers. We wanted to be sure not to violate the privacy of the grieving family.

Sometimes a photograph can tell a story in the way words cannot. We believe that was the case with the poignant photograph that appeared on page A3 of our print edition on July 16. The article that appeared in print emphasized the wonderful qualities of Dalin and Logan.

I believe the comments in the article underscore the profound loss the Torresan family and the entire community have suffered.

https://www.facebook.com/edmontonjournal?hc_location=timeline




My thoughts...

No way to comment without seeing the photo in question:

Strathcona County RCMP restrain a distraught relative after a two vehicle fatal crash on Highway 16 at Range Road 213 in Leduc County, Alta., on Monday, July 15, 2013. Two brothers, a 14 and a 17-year-old, died when their Saturn was struck while crossing the highway by a GMC Sierra pickup shortly after noon. Ian Kucerak/Edmonton Sun/QMI Agency

Teen brothers killed in Alta. crash were arm-wrestling champs | Canada | News | Toronto Sun


I don't think it's sensational or disrespectful but they did quietly scrub this one from their online story.

This is the only one I found doing a quick search. Some commenters say there were more and that faces could be seen, I dunno. But if this is the one in question I have no problem with it.

 

[SLM]

It saddens me that this father had to endure what should have been a private moment in a such a public way, I'm sure that must have been very difficult for him. The only photo that I've seen is the same one that Loc found, and I can't say that photo is unusually exploitative, at least not any more so than any public news reporting of any family's tragedy normally is.

They publish photos of accident scenes all the time in the paper, that a relative of someone involved in a crash happened to be there at the scene probably doesn't happen all that often. It was a public scene as all traffic accidents are.

Would I feel violated or exploited were I in his shoes? Probably I would, grief is a very difficult thing to do publicly, any incidence of the outside world coming into our private grief feels like an invasion by hostile forces. So I understand it, they probably do need someone to be really angry with too. If I lost my 14 year old and 17 year old like that, I'd probably be a very angry person.

It can be a really fine line though, reporting of events and the invasion of individual's privacy.

 

[karrie]

I don't think it's sensational or disrespectful but they did quietly scrub this one from their online story.

This is the only one I found doing a quick search. Some commenters say there were more and that faces could be seen, I dunno. But if this is the one in question I have no problem with it.

Yeah, I noted the paper saying 'you can't see his face'. But seriously, everyone from the community knows EXACTLY who he is, and by naming him a relative, pretty much anyone from outside the community can tell who it is.

Not sensationalist, but I think it's immensely disrespectful given that they were asked not to post it.

Most papers won't publish stories of accidental death unless the family okays it, end of story. When my girlfriend's father was run over by a tractor in a farming accident, the paper asked if they could run a story. When her brother died in a vehicle rollover, they asked. When her husband died in a quad accident, they asked.

When one of my friends pulled out in front of a semi truck in a lapse of judgement, the paper ran the story and photos of her car AFTER the removal of her body from the scene, they scrapped the photos of her tarp covered body at the request of the family.

The papers usually take their lead from the family in the way they cover these stories. But obviously someone thought they'd caught too poignant a picture, too heart tugging a story.

 

[taxslave]

About4 years ago a paramedic from near here was called to afatal motorcycle accident. Unknown to all until it was too late the rider was his son.If the local paper clued in they had the good sense to keep it quiet.

 

[Locutus]

Something doesn't make sense to me.

The husband was at the scene but the wife wasn't. How and when did she learn that some photos were taken? The crash (and photos) appeared online the same day as far as I can tell.


Her FB post:
The newspapers have been calling for a statement from us, the Torresan's, family of the 2 boys killed in the fatal car crash last Monday, well here it is. The Edmonton Journal was on scene of the crash last week when my husband Dean, came upon the accident fatal crash that killed our boys. Of course, as any father would, he saw his boys still on the scene and went to run to them. The Edmonton Journals photographer Shaughn Butts was on scene and proceeded to take pictures of Dean as he tried to get to his boys. I cannot express my disgust at a photographer and a newspaper who, after being told by police NOT to publish the pictures and after receiving an irate call from me telling them not to exploit our pain, has continued to do so. Many of you have asked me what you can do for us, PLEASE if you buy the Edmonton Journal...DON'T, if you subscribe to it, CANCEL and tell them you are doing it for the Torresan Clan. Also please fell free to write in to the paper to express your disgust with them if you desire. The media thrives on sensationalism, but we can choose not to let them get away with exploitation. If they can hide behind their freedom of the press crap, then I have every intention of using my freedom of speech to speak out against them. Thank you for listening to my rant, as I have felt the need to protect my own, and anyone who knows me, knows how passionate I am about my family.



The phone call seems to be the priority here rather than dealing with what just happened to her sons. She called the EJ but mentions no other outlets. Did she call all papers and tv stations? Then the paper says the RCMP never said not to take pictures. Who is to say what was said and what was alleged to have been said. If the Journal ran the online pic and then deleted it without any mention, that was cowardly and sneaky. They should have acknowledged why in a correction or update.

Also, the mother's rage seems focused on the EJ when the Sun ran it on their front page. Why not crucify them too?

 

[damngrumpy]

Now we are going to have pressure groups determining what can be new and what can't.
Get a grip people. It was news according to the editor and that is how a free press works
in an open society. Lets see it started with kids not allowed to throw snowballs at school.
It progressed to (no firearms) good rule but it became less so when a kid wore a bracelet
with a little trinket gun and that student and others after were suspended.
It progressed into all kinds of areas that intrude into our lives including rewriting classic
literature to reflect political correctness. I advanced to saying how big a soda pop container
should be, to homeless people denied food because NY City couldn't determine the salt
content. And now we have people demanding to be allowed to control the news.
At an accident scene the media covers they are there to get the most dramatic pictures
and the facts to the best of their ability. Just because someone doesn't like it does not mean
it ain't news.
I agree it is a heart wrenching experience but that is part of a news story as well.

 

[gerryh]

Something doesn't make sense to me.

The husband was at the scene but the wife wasn't. How and when did she learn that some photos were taken? The crash (and photos) appeared online the same day as far as I can tell.


The phone call seems to be the priority here rather than dealing with what just happened to her sons. She called the EJ but mentions no other outlets. Did she call all papers and tv stations? Then the paper says the RCMP never said not to take pictures. Who is to say what was said and what was alleged to have been said. If the Journal ran the online pic and then deleted it without any mention, that was cowardly and sneaky. They should have acknowledged why in a correction or update.

Also, the mother's rage seems focused on the EJ when the Sun ran it on their front page. Why not crucify them too?

Her husband probably told her about the photographer, why crucify the EJ and not the sun? Maybe because, in her grief, she has fixated on the one outlet as the transgressor against her family? You are expecting rationality at time when she has lost 2 kids? Grab a brain Loc.

 

[Locutus]

Her husband probably told her about the photographer, why crucify the EJ and not the sun? Maybe because, in her grief, she has fixated on the one outlet as the transgressor against her family? You are expecting rationality at time when she has lost 2 kids? Grab a brain Loc.

She posted on FB yesterday, not the day of the crash. Surely she is more rational now. Given the time it takes to put all her words to text. She speaks of 'the media' in plural 'them' terms. She only called-out the one paper.

Anyway, I could care less about the Journal since they quietly edited a web story without a reason why, either there or in the editor's FB letter.

 

[gerryh]

She posted on FB yesterday, not the day of the crash. Surely she is more rational now. Given the time it takes to put all her words to text. She speaks of 'the media' in plural 'them' terms. She only called-out the one paper.

Ahhhhhhhhhh....there's a time limit for grief....I see.. Is it different depending on who has died? Friend, grandparent, close relative, child, sibling........ maybe you could post a chart for those of us not in the know.:roll:

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Ahhhhhhhhhh....there's a time limit for grief....I see.. Is it different depending on who has died? Friend, grandparent, close relative, child, sibling........ maybe you could post a chart for those of us not in the know.:roll:

Scarily, the psychological/psychiatric community is also starting to say that "excessive grief" is a mental disorder.

For which I have no doubt they have a pill. And a definition of "excessive" that allows for no variance or exception.

 

[L Gilbert]

Scarily, the psychological/psychiatric community is also starting to say that "excessive grief" is a mental disorder.

For which I have no doubt they have a pill. And a definition of "excessive" that allows for no variance or exception.

WTF? Makes me wonder if these psychologists and psychiatrists have any kids. "Excessive grief" indeed. But, I guess if someone kills themself over the loss of their kids, it could be excessive. I'd really like to know how they quantify something like grief, though. Interesting. You have a link, T-bones?

 

[gerryh]

WTF? Makes me wonder if these psychologists and psychiatrists have any kids. "Excessive grief" indeed. But, I guess if someone kills themself over the loss of their kids, it could be excessive. I'd really like to know how they quantify something like grief, though. Interesting. You have a link, T-bones?

Locutus has the answer, since he feels a week is long enough for a mother that has lost 2 of her kids without warning.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Locutus has the answer, since he feels a week is long enough for a mother that has lost 2 of her kids without warning.

Weird to agree with you twice in one day, gerryh.

Weird, but kinda cool.

WTF? Makes me wonder if these psychologists and psychiatrists have any kids. "Excessive grief" indeed. But, I guess if someone kills themself over the loss of their kids, it could be excessive. I'd really like to know how they quantify something like grief, though. Interesting. You have a link, T-bones?

No sooner said than done, Gil.

Is grief really a disorder? - Brainiac

This is the popular press, but the Boston Globe is a good paper. The article should give you a good starting point for further review if you're interested.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

No sooner said than done, Gil.

Is grief really a disorder? - Brainiac

This is the popular press, but the Boston Globe is a good paper. The article should give you a good starting point for further review if you're interested.

These include the creation of categories that reinterpret behaviors like grief, excessive eating, and forgetfulness as psychiatric disorders.

I never knew I was crazy. Is that a get out of jail free card (by insanity) if I remember to use it?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I never knew I was crazy. Is that a get out of jail free card (by insanity) if I remember to use it?

These days? Probably.

 

[L Gilbert]

Weird to agree with you twice in one day, gerryh.

Weird, but kinda cool.



No sooner said than done, Gil.

Is grief really a disorder? - Brainiac

This is the popular press, but the Boston Globe is a good paper. The article should give you a good starting point for further review if you're interested.

Holy crap. Speaking of overthinking stuff. Guess we are all just screwed in the head because we all experience grief and other things that are typically just traits of being human. Unf'nreal. I think those psychotrists have a similar or even the same syndrome as some religious leaders do: the I-forgot-we-are-human-and-cannot-be-perfect syndrome.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Holy crap. Speaking of overthinking stuff. Guess we are all just screwed in the head because we all experience grief and other things that are typically just traits of being human. Unf'nreal. I think those psychotrists have a similar or even the same syndrome as some religious leaders do: the I-forgot-we-are-human-and-cannot-be-perfect syndrome.

Hey, they got pills to sell, man. The Great Recession has been hard on psychiatrists. I heard one say that his economic situation was so dire he hadn't bought a new Mercedes in two years.

 

[L Gilbert]

Hey, they got pills to sell, man. The Great Recession has been hard on psychiatrists. I heard one say that his economic situation was so dire he hadn't bought a new Mercedes in two years.

Gawd, that's awful!

lol I've had occasion to meet a few psychiatrists over the years, and have observed that the ones I met, and there are probably many more like them, are loonier than their patients.

 

[karrie]

Also, the mother's rage seems focused on the EJ when the Sun ran it on their front page. Why not crucify them too?

Did they pay EJ for the pic or were they there? From all accounts I've heard, only EJ's photographer was there.