I'm too busy being a hostage to talk right now......

I think I agree. What if the phone call had freaked the gunman out and inspired him to kill them all?

No, you are not wrong. IMO, it was unconscionable for the reporter to call the hostages. What if the call would have set the gunman off, and he had shot everybody?

Sometimes I think that the media just goes too far!

That's what they are there for.

Seems perfectly good journalistic practice to me.The idea that it would send the gunman beserk borders on the beserk itself.

Do you want journalists to wait for official statements like the Pravda lot used to.If you have guard-dogs it's best they are a bit fierce.

I won't even pretend to know what might set off a man who goes on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. Rather safe than sorry, in my opinion and I side with FreeDuck and Phoenix there.

What is the "that" that they're there for, spendius?

To insert themselves inside a story?

spendius- Do you think that gunmen that hold people hostage are RATIONAL? There is no telling what an enraged gunman might do. Personally, I think that the reporter should be severely chastised, if not fired.

Or is your motto, "The news at ANY price?"

oh yeah.

inserting themselves into the story ensures sales of thier stories and magazines/news papers they work for.

f-n scum suckers..

I am siding with the " it was uncalled for" .. as well.

Besides the possibility of setting off the gunman..

how were the police supposed to get in touch ?
I mean.. this stupid reporter had tied up the one person who was closest to the door with questions about what was going on..

Dont the POLICE need that phone line to get in touch with the survivors... the gunman.. ???????

I think this reporter should be charged with obstruction of justice.

To entertain newspaper buyers,which I'm not, with the juiciest most dramatic stories they can get hold of.That's his job.

I would think the noisy arrival of a pack of squad cars is much more likely to freak the guy out.Or somebody dropping a large glass dish.

The point is, one does not know what would set the gunman off. In the case of a hostage situation, the only people who should become involved are the police, preferably from a unit that has been trained in dealing with hostage situations.

OK Spendius, let's look at it another way. How would YOU feel about the reporter if someone that you loved were in the Sam Goody store when the newsman called?

Maybe if you bought a newspaper you'd find that print journalist are not in the entertainment business, unlike their cohorts in broadcast media.

I really am trying to understand your position, spendius, but I just don't get it.

BUT- print journalists are always looking for that 'big break', that one story that makes everyone wow at thier journalistic abilities..
the one that gives them the 'coosh coosh' job..


maybe..

If the reporter wants a first-hand account can he not interview the gunman after he is in custody?

Say I was a reporter doing a story about a breakthrough brain surgery. Should I call up the surgeon in the middle of the operation?

Don't forget that most hostage takers are seeking an audience, a go-between and a miraculous solution to their personal problems.

I doubt that a ringing telephone would spook a gunman seeking attention.

Before the days of SWAT teams, members of the media frequently negotiated between the hostage taker and the authorities.

Why didn't the SWAT team have the telephone lines blocked?

This gunman didn't seem to start with the intention of taking hostages though. He went into the mall and started shooting people. Then he went into a store and ended up taking hostages. His intention seemed to be to kill or at least maim people.

There weren't many details of the story but I expect we'll be hearing a lot about it over the next few days.

That is a very good question about why the phone lines had not been blocked.

One employee's mom called too.

Which to me is a bit more understandable. If it had been me though, I think I would have talked to the cops first.

Wouldn't it make sense though, Noddy, to let the hostage taker make the first move. I do recall similar stories where the criminal had a specific media person that they chose to speak with.

I'm sure the journalist never imagined he would get through on the phone. The thought probably flew into his head and he just did it on the off-chance. I don't think his intentions were to cause more danger to the hostages but he did take a chance with the lives of these people. Had the gunman desperately needed a skilled negotiator to phone and was, instead, bombarded by reporters calling, asking inane questions, it could have jeopardised an already tense situation.

Unfortunately journalists and paparazzi get their hated reputations because they display such a lack of respect towards other human beings. It is one thing to go after the story, push ahead of the competition and be creative about getting stories but they really do go too far and get away with too much if you ask me. If reporters were fined every time they crossed the line with anyone - a member of the public, a celebrity, a government official - then they might be forced to have a smidgeon of ethics. I don't mind that they have to get to the truth sometimes by being persistant and doggedly following up a story. The truth is important but sometimes the only way to that truth is by being sneaky and digging away, but to what cost? They lower themselves until they are beneath the very evil, criminal, pathological creeps they are trying to oust. Unwrapping a snake by becoming the rat that eats the snake is not admirable in any way and look how society has learned from that disgusting behavior? Yes the press say that they wouldn't have to do all this for pictures of naked celebrities if the public didn't want them - true - but our society has gotten this way how? By being bombarded and influenced by the very bad behavior that has become so commonplace that we don't raise an eyebrow any longer. We have become immune and that is not a good thing.

I'd like to be aware of many things around me, both good and bad, but I don't want to have to crawl into a sewer myself to sensationalize it.

Boom wrote-



I really don't have a position.If you have competitive journalists under pressure from editors and you have gunmen running amok I think what happened is more or less inevitable.Any predictions about what might happen are pure speculation and to make the assumption that the call increased the risk is untoward and possibly self-serving.

Had the guy got a big front page byline and big sales the editors of rivals who did what some are saying is the decent thing would be at least giving their men black looks.

Which paper would you have bought?

I also get the impression that this is the one occupation I know of - paparazzi - that would not step in if someone were in danger and they could help? I'd be dreadfully upset but not surprised if a cameraman kept clicking away as someone died in front of them - wait that's already happened ...

I think in this situation it's fortunate that the call didn't set the gunman off. If I had heard later that a call from a reporter at some paper caused the guy to kill some number of people, I would not buy that paper. That seems to be the point that some people are getting at in this thread.

Many journalist do get deservedly bad reputations but for the most part I appreciate their efforts.

Someone does need to be out there asking questions, digging around, trying to find stuff out. Nobody needs to be stalking celebrities but there is obviously a big market for it.

Heeven's commends remind me so much of the conversation we had on here about Kevin Carter's photo of the vulture stalking the baby. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

I'd buy the same newspaper that is delivered to my door each morning, spendius. I'm not particularly impulsive about buying papers based on their headlines although I was tempted by the WWN the other day when they announced "Joy Riding Alien Teenagers Terrorize Neighborhood" or some such thing.

I agree, Boomerang, that the AP went overboard, but they weren't the only ones... just the only ones who admitted to it. Police said that they couldn't use the phones in the mall because they were in near constant use; they blamed the reporters. But who is surprised? We live in a Brave New World where it isn't interesting news unless a couple of hostages are taken and someone is killed.

This is apparently what the news watchers want:
... the description of the weapon... how bad were the damages? Tell me all about it... was there blood?...

In the end the TV reporters were forced to provide a map showing the hospitals where the injured were taken. Good grief. THIS is news?