Comments on: Tabloid fire coverage slips into grief p-rn

By: Greg Angelo

Greg Angelo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

In reference to journalistic standards I am deeply concerned at the insensitivity of both The Australian and The Herald Sun in relation to the recnt bushfires The Australian published a picture of a child’s body being removed from a burnt out house. This was one of four children who perished in the fire and the the identity of the child would be would be readily identifiable to any of the relatives or associates of the family. Similarly the publication of a paparazzi shot of a man being told by his father that his mother had been burnt to death is an unnecessary intrusion into the personal grief of these poor people.

I attempted several times to contact the editor of the Australian without success to ask the question that if this child was one of Rupert Murdoch’s children or grandchildren burnt to death in these fires whether News Corporation would publish these pictures. Similarly if Rupert was being told that Dame Elisabeth had been burnt to death in the bushfire would his grieving picture also be on the front page of the Australian?

By: Russell

Russell — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Now if Conroy’s internet filter could be tweaked just a little bit to block all of this grief & disaster porn …

By: Lucy

Lucy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Big fan of your pieces, but this feels a little misguided. You know, as well as anyone does, that people find it hard to grasp the tragedy implicit in cold, hard facts. The reason people have been so affected by these stories is not the recitation of death tolls and hectares burnt and the debate over forest fuel. It’s because they read stories of kids crying for their parents and people who lost their lovingly restored homes and think, as Rudd had it, “there but for the grace of God go I.” Or some secular version thereof. It makes the events seem tangible in a way that statistics and climate figures and policy debates do not.

Is this kind of coverage exploitative? Probably. But it’s a reason for, as well as a reflection of, public sympathy for the victims. If the media didn’t report this stuff, there is no way the public would’ve donated $50 million and counting. Surely sensationalism - even “grief porn” - is a lesser evil than public apathy?

As for complaining that the Herald Sun’s front page was “designed to sell papers”… um, are you new here?

By: Chris Ryan

Chris Ryan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Several fine points made there Greg. You mention Rob Lyons from “Spiked” and the term “grief p-rn.” I found a similar term being used by friends and colleagues here in Australia in the aftermath of Steve Irwin’s passing - “Mournsturbation.” It appears that “mournsturbation’ is what the media engage in when they have created sufficient “grief p-rn.” Perhaps we could create a regular award for the best and most prolific producers of “grief p-rn” or practitioners of “mournsturbation.” We could call it the “Wankley”…..oh, right yes…that may already be taken.

By: yllac

yllac — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Thankyou Greg - Grief Porn is the phrase that came to mind as I saw Lisa on Ch9 Today show hold up that Herald Sun cover. Walking through the hospital I work in I overheard others debating the need for that front page. The related issue of the media reporting how other media are reporting this (ooh look, we’re on US news!) is pathetic at best and insulting to the actual victims. Generally I thought the coverage of the first few days including Ch 9 reporting on Bryan Naylor was restrained and respectful, but in lieu of newsworthy updates there has been reversion to form.

By: John Garlick

John Garlick — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I too have felt uncomfortable about the intrusive nature of the bushfire coverage but I also see that over $40m has been raised for the victims. Does it follow that the constant exposure has served to provide the affected communities with more support?

By: Naomi Cartledge

Naomi Cartledge — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I confess to being in a bind. Already I’ve shouted at the TV to ‘get the camera out of his/her face’ etc, but at the same time, I’ve been irritated for example, when horrible scenes from Iraq or Gaza etc is preceded by the warning; “viewers may find the following images distressing”? Well, the poor little kids from war zones don’t have anyone caring for them, let alone what images they see? I feel much the same about the horrors of the bush fires, but do agree, that there’s a line between a relevant ‘story’ and invading, or living off someone’s grief and pain. Those affected aren’t capable of thinking of this, they’re in another space, of pain and loss; it takes the integrity of those ‘looking on’ to use sensitivity - a quality lacking in some media people. I appeal to them to have more respect. These are human beings, not a means to achieve better ratings.

The comments re the amount of money raised so far is a relevant one. Would we be moved to such generous actions if we didn’t know the real extent of the loss and damage. But, we all know now - they can back off - for the sake of those who are suffering - please!

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Come on Greg. This is as big a disaster as you get in Australia in modern times. It was always going to fill pages. And we are a long way from the end. Not until it rains everywhere. Not until the bush resprouts.

Even then the endless story of climate change the rest of our lives, means this disaster will be a signpost too probably the rest of our lives.

And because we are mostly coastal fringe dwellers we can all imagine ourselves in the circumstance. It's a new reality like 9/11 and in proportional terms similar loss of life for a country.

Though I will say one thing about the right wing nasties: The greenies never killed a million people in Iraq by mistake over non existent WMD but somehow we caused 300 deaths while never holding govt in even one local council let alone state or federal. Talk about cynical selectivity.

By: RJG

RJG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I don’t think that telling people’s stories of both tragedy and “light” are a bad thing. What I did object to was the ABC purporting to be the emergency station and constantly inserting the “stories” into the real information that people needed to act on in the middle of the fires. If you are going to be an emergency channel stick to relevant factual information that people need to survive. The insertion of the “stories” does two things. Firstly it creates confusion between what is factual and what is opinion and secondly the horror stories being told create extreme anxiety in people who are in totally diffirent situations from those in the “stories.” Such anxiety is dangerous because it creates strong emotions that people will translate into bad decisions. I was listening to the ABC trying to figure out where we stood and where friends stood in relation to the Churchill fires. I resorted to the DSE and CFA websites in the end, because I didn’t have to try and interpret the real information from the nice to know, but irrelevent at the time human interest stories.

The ABC should leave the stories to the commercial channels and stations until after it is all over.

By: Jeremy Davis

Jeremy Davis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Spot on Greg.