U.S. Department of Defense // Creative Commons
Although reporters broadcasting in dangerous conditions is hardly a new trend — it began in 1961 — viewers have been questioning this practice more than ever as of late. But according to CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann, reporting in the wake of a hurricane actually sends a more urgent message across: "Part of that is that television is all about visual proof,” he said. “You want to persuade people that what they’re seeing is real and matters to them. And if they can see me standing out there getting knocked around, it’ll convince them that they should not do the same thing."
On the other hand, WBPF (a West Palm Beach ABC affiliate) reporter Whitney Burbank doesn't feel in danger while reporting in the midst of a hurricane, as she knows her bosses look out for her safety. "“My employers are pretty careful if something is unsafe,” she said. "They don’t want you to do a crazy live shot in the middle of a tornado. If it’s too windy to go out, they’re going to say, ‘Don’t do it.’”
Even so, many argue that placing reporters in any setting under Harvey or Irma is a step too far. While seeing a report on the hurricane in front a green screen no doubt has a lesser effect than seeing a reporter struggle to get words out while dealing with intense winds and rain, we also have to take into account the safety of our journalists. Do the benefits of seeing a reporter in dangerous conditions outweigh the dangers they pose to them as individuals?
Links to articles:
New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/business/media/hurricane-irma-broadcasts-safety.html?mcubz=1
11 comments:
Reporters have been doing this for a long time and they know the necessary precautions to take when approaching storms. They take precautions in advance and they try not to go into areas which the reporters life might be put in danger. CBS states that they position themselves near areas which they could move themselves to in case of conditions worsening. They also have SUVs which protect the reporters from the wind and flying debris. News stations are strategical and go through all necessary precautions to ensure that these news reporters are not in significant danger. I disagree with those who say putting reporters is a step too far. Having a reporter in the storm can give us a personal account of how deadly a storm is. And we should continue to do it if we can guarantee the reporters safety.
I don't believe that broadcasting in the middle of hurricanes is necessary. Visuals a network gives viewers that don't include a reporter amidst the storm are just as strong in my opinion. When a viewer sees the flooding and destruction done to infrastructure, that should be enough for them to know they should evacuate. It can also be seen as hypocritical by some viewers who hear a reporter going directly against his/her report which is usually to evacuate the area he/she is in. On top of that, I think it's unprofessional for employers to put their reporters in danger just to get a more interesting shot. I see this as an issue of safety versus entertainment, and safety is far more important.
I can understand the dangerous and the somewhat unnecessary actions that reporters take in order to broadcast particular event, like this hurricane, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Like Chris said visuals should be enough to warn the public of such horrific destruction and push them to evacuate. For reporters to state that their employers take all necessary precautions to ensure their safety seems a bit stretched; not to say that they aren't prepared for when an incident happens, but storms are unpredictable and so are injuries or problems caused by them. All in all, I don't think live coverage of a storm is worth a reporter's well being or life.
I think it's really up to the reporters themselves. If they choose to do it and the news station they work for are willing to cover potential liabilities,then they should go for it. It's not about entertainment, it's the reporters choice to pursue their passion for their career, and it's up to them. Any safety precautions are up to station they work for. Simple.
The reporters don't have to report in storms if they don't want to. No one is going to fire them for deciding that it's too unsafe to report in certain weather. There is nobody in the news industry speaking against this, and I would assume they'd be the most informed as to how it goes down and if the news agencies make sure their reporters are safe. As others have said, this has been going on for a while, so they know how to properly handle these situations. I don't see how this is interpreted as an entertainment issue; I don't know anyone that spends their free time watching people get rained on.
While reporting in storms isn't absolutely necessary, the reporter and the crews should be able to choose if they want to go into a hazardous area or not. If they choose to go, then they should be able to go. Safety precautions should probably be implemented, but at the end of the day, no one has a right to tell the reporter not to pursue what they want to peruse.
I think that reporting during storms is unnecessary. Although the reporters probably know what they are doing, it would be much safer to just stay away from the scene in general. While the visuals are certainly effective in allowing outside sources to understand the detriment of the situation, the reporter doesn't actually have to be there. Can't they narrate over a birds-eye view shot of the hurricane? I mean, if the reporter and the cameraman and the rest of the entire news crew wants to go out into the hurricane, who's to stop them? Let them go if they choose, but don't put someone's life at risk just for views, or a cool shot.
I definitely think it is up to the reporters to decide whether or not they put themselves in danger to cover such an event.
In my opinion, however, I don't think it's completely necessary to have someone put in such a situation, just to get some visual proof that will help connect the audience to the reporter and dangerous environment. There are plenty of other ways to tell a story, visually speaking. It's really not worth it to risk your life just to inform audiences at home, in my opinion. People watch the news to be informed and not necessarily entertained, and I honestly think it would be unsettling to watch a reporter seriously injure themselves because they wanted to show some true "dedication" to their job.
Reporters and journalists work to send out messages and stories, and if they believe that standing in the middle of a storm is necessary to illustrate a certain message then that is their creative decision. I think it does reveal some intensity and severity when reporters put themselves in a position that regular citizens would be facing in those same conditions. Seeing one reporter in the middle of a storm doesn't even compare to the multiple homeless lives that could be struggling to find a place to seek shelter when reporters could simply hop in a van and leave the area that same day. Although it's not ideal to watch your daily news reporter getting injured on live television, they are more than likely aware of the risks that they take and know when conditions are too extreme.
I am not sure whether or not it is really necessary to do live reports from the middle of hurricanes, but either way, it is the decision of the reporters and the networks if they want to put themselves in that situation. I think that reporters, especially ones that sign up as one covering storms and working in war areas, know what they are signing up for when they take the job as a reporter. It is probably what their passion is, and they probably enjoy being in the heat of the moment, so if they want to report those types of things, all power to them. That being said, even if the network wants to put them in a situation, the reporter has to agree, as they are essentially putting their lives at risk just to report a story. At the end of the day, though, I think that reporters are pretty well protected in these situations, and the networks would not put them or make them stay in a setting that they could potentially get injured in.
Post a Comment