One of the most dreaded assignments in any newsroom is to interview the family of someone who has just been killed. It is bad enough when the death is an accident. It is especially bad when the victim has been murdered.
As difficult as it is from this side of the note pad, most of us can’t imagine what it is like on the other. And that was one reason for a recent seminar involving Star-Telegram reporters, editors and photographers and people who had lost family members to violent death.
The meeting was sponsored by the newspaper, the Juvenile Violence Task Force, the Crime Prevention Resource Center, and Parents of Murdered Children Inc. There have been other meetings, but they were generally small. This one involved more than 85 people.
Brenda O’Quin, who lost a child to violence and is coordinator of the Juvenile Violence Task force, set it up.
“The purpose of the workshop was to minimize the intrusion and help reporters understand the trauma a family may be experiencing so a family is not revictimized by them,” she said. “We found the reporters wanted this information as much as we wanted them to have it.
I personally walked away from the workshop feeling very positive about the ability of the journalists from that workshop to respond to the needs of victims, and I hope the Star-Telegram felt we better understood the difficult position they are sometimes in when covering a story,” O’Quin said.
Journalists, in my opinion, have little real appreciation of what it means to be the focus of intensive coverage. My limited experience has been daunting, and I can’t imagine how I would feel if I also were struggling to deal with the death of a loved one at the same time. But we can talk to one another about it, and that is what happened two weeks ago. (Remember, this involved Star-Telegram people only, so the only impact on other members of the news media will come if they read this column.)
We told the family members and people who work with them at the start that it was not the intent of the newspaper to develop a set of rigid guidelines about coverage of violence as a result of the workshop. But we wanted to listen to and learn from them.
We divided into 10 groups with both newspaper people and survivors involved and gave each group a specific topic.
One group, discussing comments not appropriate when talking to victims and survivors, suggested using subdued — not graphic — language in the interview. The group also cautioned about reporters being the first to give information to the victims and survivors, although another group studying a different question suggested sharing information that the survivors may not know.
Many reporters who have been in the business for any length of time have had the misfortune of being the one to tell someone that a loved one has been killed. It’s not something you want to do twice.
Other suggestions: Be compassionate in the approach; later, as the coverage progresses, don’t ask if the survivor has forgiven the killer; don’t ask specific legal questions about an ongoing trial.
And in a touching comment, newspeople were urged to remember that “perpetrators have moms and dads, too.”
A different group dealing with a similar question (“What should be off-limits to the press? “) suggested contacting family members or a representative for permission before covering funerals. This already is Star-Telegram policy.
This group suggested giving a survivor time after the trial to collect his or her thoughts, or speaking instead to a designated person from the victim’s family. In the discussion, someone mentioned making sure that people who claim to be friends and speaking on behalf of the family really do have that authority.
Another group discussed appropriate questions.
Ask the name and age and get the correct spelling, they said, and make it clear who you are and whom you represent. The group suggested interviewing adults only and knowing enough about the crime ahead of time so that “you can be sympathetic.” Set boundaries, the group said, and respect the survivor’s home.
Don’t say things like, “I know what you are going through,” because you don’t. It is appropriate to say things like, “I am sorry for what has happened” and “I understand you don’t want to talk now. Is there someone else I can talk to? ” and “Tell me something about the person.”
This was the group that suggested sharing “what you know about the crime with the family and ask them what they want to know.”
“At the end of the interview, ask whether there is something they would like to add,” the group said. “It gives the victims some control of the interview.”
It is appropriate, a different group said, to ask survivors whether they are willing to be interviewed, and it’s also OK to ask again. But if the second answer is still no, then “ask them to call you if or when ready.”
We asked one group to describe appropriate material in stories about a victim. Basic background information and interviews with relatives willing to talk are fine, the group said, but “irrelevant personal information, sexual preference unless sexual preference is a motive for the crime, and unsubstantiated information” should be off-limits.
This group also was critical of any decision-making based on competitive pressure and “insisting on an interview.”
“Body bags are out,” said the group discussing crime scene photographs. They are never appropriate “even when the crime is in foreign lands” because they “dehumanize the situation.”
There was some discussion that television, because of its immediacy, can “get away” with more, but there was a clear expectation that the decision-making would be more reasoned in print publications.
“Crime scenes are `fair game’ as long as they represent the true nature of the story,” the group said.
One group discussed ways to protect the privacy of the families and still get the story.
“Make sure your facts are correct,” group members said. Tell victims when the story will run, and leave them a card with information for follow-up contacts and for both complaints and compliments.
Treating victims with respect “leads to give-and-take and a fair balance,” the group said.
Members also cautioned that “revictimization can and does occur during interviews,” so reporters should “take care with questions and techniques.”
This group suggested developing seminars to be held at other newspapers and at college journalism departments about the do’s and don’ts of violence coverage.
There was concern about how to handle the victim’s story when the reporting has switched to the accused — say, when a person convicted of murder is fighting the death penalty or during frequent and repetitive appeals.
“If a story is done about the accused, victims and survivors want their loved ones remembered and mentioned at the same time,” said the group studying this issue. “When the accused’s version is reported, that version needs to be placed in the context of evidence and information that shows the contrary.”
The group that discussed publication of names and addresses held that certification as an adult means that a juvenile’s name certainly could be published, but the group was split on what to do when the juvenile has not been certified. Star-Telegram policy takes into account the kind of crime involved when dealing with this issue.
The group felt that it is appropriate to publish general crime locations but not specific victim addresses (the practice generally followed by the Star-Telegram), and that it is permissible to publish victims’ names.
“You are never sure what will happen when you put people with very different perspectives together in one room,” O’Quin said. “This time, it worked very well. I think my concern was that families who have survived the murder of a loved one are very vocal about their experiences. They have a right to be hurt and angry.
“Reporters, to get the information they need, must also be strong and determined. That’s not to say they are not kind and compassionate people, but they have a job to do,” she said.
“I…think that each group walked away with a new and better understanding of the perspective of the other,” O’Quin said. “I noticed some cards being exchanged and some meetings being arranged with reporters and families….
“I also got the feeling that the participants, both from the Star-Telegram and Parents of Murdered Children Inc., would like to do this again,” O’Quin said. “Time was short, and they felt rushed.”
Patsy Thomas, executive director of the Crime Prevention Resource Center, said that “an incredible thing happened” at the meeting, “as it often does when a diverse group of individuals meet to discuss sensitive and emotional issues.”
“What I observed … was a group of Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporters and editors who struggle with the dilemma of reporting crime while trying to maintain respect and sensitivity for victims,” said Thomas. “My sense was that, as a whole, all perspectives represented had a sincere desire to do the right thing in a professional and responsible manner.”
