Adam has a post on this below so I'll try to focus on other things. I have found the reaction almost as interesting as the story itself.
On NPR the other day, they were talking about the coverage. It was less a critique of CNN -- indeed, this was compelling footage whether the boy was in the balloon or not -- and more a criticism of the aftermath. The little kid threw up on not one show but two. The commenter from Salon pointed out that after the first time, the other network should have pulled the plug. They were too concerned with ratings to do this.
This person also said something interesting, that the reason they should have pulled the plug was due to "their obligation to the child." I thought this was interesting just because it was framed in the way we've been talking about these issues. What I wondered, though, is whether this outweighed the public's right to know the truth --- not that's what The Today Show was getting, but in theory. Definitely feel for the kid, but at what point do you grab the ratings and take the bait, and at what point do you realize this family and whole situation smells foul? She drew the line at the kid puking on himself. Few ethical scenarios have so graphic a tipping point.
NB C-notes
15 years ago
1 comment:
I agree that the first interview's plug should have been pulled the minute the kid got sick, but a lot of the blame is undoubtedly put on both parents. During one of the interviews, the mother had to be TOLD to go look after her son. The father kept rambling, although the mics were picking up all the feedback from the bathroom where the boy was. I don't blame the media for milking this story as much as they did, because the father tried to do the same. However, it is more the parents' fault than the media's that the child's health was not made the priority of both interviews.
Post a Comment