Johnny Utah said:
Seriously it's nice that these folks can be so sad when touched personally by such thing, but I don't get this "other side of the Cindy Sheehans" BS
The other side of the Cindy Sheehans means we have only seen in the MSM the point of view of someone like Cindy Sheehan protesting her Anti-War views while we have not seen the other point of views from other women who lost a loved one and don't get into the Anti-War protest like this wife who lost her husband.
Are you implying that Cindy Sheehan did not grieve in this manner????
I feel greatly for the women and men who have lost loved ones in any war. I do not need to see a photo of them to know that they are grieving. I do not need to hear the sordid details of them throwing themselves on the coffins or crying over tattered uniforms. This is voyeuristic journalism, and in many eyes contravenes the ethical codes of journalism. These stories, while heart rending have not furthered a need for public information. This is a common problem with journalism now. The rush to produce economically viable reporting scoops has led to confusing the "public's RIGHT to know" with the "public's DESIRE to know". Reporters who approach grieving families are supposed to be sure that there is a reason for acquiring the information beyond an economic filling of the public's desire for sensational media.
Canadian Broadcast Standards (RTNDA Code of Journalism Ethics) and British Broadcasting Standards Council Code of Practice Clause 4 (b) (i) of Section V Taste and Decency: Care must be taken not to take advantage of people in deep shock, even if it is not immediately recognizable, persuading them into an expression of their emotions or views, for example, which they may later regret.
In a state of raw emotion, the grieving family, in their state of shock may view the reporter as a friend, and in their need to pour out their emotions, often talks, vents, cries on the reporter's shoulder without comprehending the consequences of these private moments becoming public. The same effect happens when a grieving individual vents on a member of the clergy, a lawyer, or a doctor. However, these people are bound by their professional ethics to keep all this information completely confidential. The same is obviously not true for the reporter.
I still maintain, that I am NOT entitled to view these pictures or listen to these stories that were obtained during moments of extreme emotion, even if technically consent was given. Legal consents require that an individual is sane and completely comprehends the consequences of their consent. I dont think that can be said for these grieving people who are in a state of mental anguish.
As for this being the other side of Cindy Sheehan. How the hell do you know how this woman is going to think and feel after this raw emotion changes into the anger stage of grief. She may well start to reassess her attitudes....or maybe she had anti war atttitudes all ready. We'll never know, because the reporter wasnt interested in presenting that--- he concentrated on how she cried and how her baby moved, etc.
No, I am NOT disrespectful of this individual. I think the reporter was.
