Where should the media draw the line in pursuing a story?

How far do we want the media to go in order to get the story? Do we want them camped outside someone’s home, waiting for a reaction or a photograph? At what point do the media shift from going after the story, to becoming part of the story? Should a family of a newsworthy person be subjected to the glare of the media spotlight? Is there any buffer space between us and the people in the news?

All questions and opinions put to a panel of media managers and a radio show listenership in Vancouver today. Bill Good on CKNW addressed the media barrage of the last week over the Bertuzzi incident and expanded the topic to include all public figures. How far should the media go? What does the public want?

A fascinating debate lasting over an hour and half as listeners called in to equally applaud or scold the media for it’s tactics in the quest for information. Vancouver’s extremely competitive media scene has each station trying to pull out the stops to get to the story, ringing doorbells, interviewing neighborhood children or staking out homes and cars, it seems that anything goes these days.

Whether it’s a former Premier walking through his kitchen as the RCMP search for documents, a Premier back from troubles in Hawaii trying to find the best way to explain his actions or a hockey player in the news for an on ice incident, does our need to know, include an invasion of privacy of the family home?

Kirk Lapointe of the Vancouver Sun, Ian Haysom of Global News and Wayne Williams Deputy Bureau chief of CBC Vancouver, shared their thoughts and procedures with the audience. For an interesting examination of the media today in a large Canadian market, check out the CKNW Audio Vault for Tuesday, March 16th from 10 am til 11:30 am, it’s a helpful primer as to what the media is all about these days. Take a listen and make up your mind.

My personal belief is that a target of the news media’s interest is fair game at the place of work or in a public space. If they’re coming out of the office, having just defrauded their shareholders of millions, click away, ask the questions, and get your sound bite. If the politician has been caught in a lie, park yourself at the Legislature or the Parliament buildings and seek out the truth, that’s where the deed took place. Invading their home, or badgering the family is something we could do without. Unless the subject’s family is involved personally in the matter, the need to set up shop at the foot of their driveway or hang around the bushes and windows is not something really required.

Far too much time is spent trying to get the “reaction” shot, rather than explaining what was done wrong and why. The shock value of “the clip, or quote”, far more likely to make the news rather than a detailed explanation of the incident and what surrounds it. Perhaps it’s the same emotion that makes one drive by an accident scene to stare; we have no real interest in the suffering of the victims, but merely a need to view the carnage. How would a reporter, editor or manager feel should the tables be reversed, a media onslaught at their homes after a particularly controversial story? They quickly would point to the right of a free and unfettered press to pursue its business. But at what cost to civility, does that pursuit require? Until we realize what’s important to a story and what is not, the media will continue on the path of the lazy. As long as we watch, they will provide. At least that's what I think, always willing to weigh the options, pro and con. Feel free to jump in.