Sensationalism or Appropriate Reporting?
The recent thread reporting a tragic loss for a prominent family in BJU (and wider) circles has recieved many views, but to this point not very many comments. A few of the ones that did comment, though, did seem to leave the impression that posting an notification about the story (in this case, I assume the initial posting provided details about the authority’s classification of cause of death) was sensationalistic. A comparison was made to the paparazzi fueled website TMZ, even.
Interestingly enough, no one made any kind of similar observations when SI posted a link reporting the death of Rick Warren’s son.
I did see some people elsewhere (on Facebook) expressing strong skepticism that the first matter was being shared as a prayer request. In my own personal experiences, my congregation can vouch that when the Warren story broke, I made it a point to encourage our congregation to pray for him and the family in our prayer meeting. That was certainly my intent in informing my congregation and others as first matter broke, as well.
My question is, what makes one story more objectionable to post than the other? Are both stories inappropriate to post? What principles would apply to whether or not a tragedy should be shared (especially if the knowledge is already publicly available)?
- 1 view
I’m sure you are very well aware that no matter what you post someone is going to criticize it. Jonathan Hamilton’s passing is something that a very large part of the Christian community is interested in. I think it is totally appropriate to put it out as a prayer request for the family. By the time it was posted, the local news had already reported the cause of death. We need to focus on the family and not the how.
The same with Rick Warren’s son. We pray with the family in their time of loss.
It seems to me that as uncomfortable as the cause of deaths in question are, one prays differently for those situations than if they had been more accidental or natural causes. It’s a different kind of grief experience.
I have observed two different funerals where it was known that the person who dies had taken their own life. There is no doubt it is shocking- a special kind of grace is needed for both the ones grieving and the ones who seek to serve them during their loss.
I understand the need for respect and sympathy, which is why I’m asking the question. If the details are already public, what should be the procedure for disseminating them (or not)?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I didn’t see anything “sensationalistic” about either story being shared here. I appreciated finding out and the opportunity to pray for both families was taken.
The controversy or kerfuffle:
The first filing title was: “Ron and Shelly Hamilton’s son Jonathan passes - possible suicide”
Then modified to: “Ron and Shelly Hamilton’s son Jonathan passes - ‘The deputy coroner says investigators have reason to believe Hamilton jumped’” (a direct quote from the article)
Doran’s response to one of the above was: “I think it is inappropriate to post speculation (and being in a news report does not make it something other than that). This lacks courtesy and good taste.”
Then SI shortened to: “Ron and Shelly Hamilton’s son Jonathan passes”
Even though it says the purpose of S/I is currently under revision — not sure why or how that will change — here’s the current purpose under which S/I is operating.
Our aim is to provide a place where Christians can interact thoughtfully and respectfully on a wide range of topics, including our articles and the news items and blog samples we post daily… . It’s our hope that discussions here focus on ideas and understanding and a passion to understand and live by the Scriptures and that, as a result, iron sharpens iron.
The difference between the two news stories referenced in the OP has to do with the source of the information. One came from the family; the other initially did not. One had the family confirming the cause of death; the other cause of death was initially speculated by a news source not associated with the family. That is what makes one more objectionable.
The similarities are that neither news story when posted here on S/I was headlined as a “prayer request” and both dealt with sensitive, tragic, private family situations.
The similarities are that neither news story when posted here on S/I was headlined as a “prayer request” and both dealt with sensitive, tragic, private family situations.
How important is that, exactly, that something be clearly identified as a “prayer request”?
With all the recent kerfuffle on NIU, though I am not generally supportive of the changes Olson’s administration implemented, I did encourage my congregation to pray for Him and the school after he was released. I don’t remember that news being headlined as a prayer request. I know it’s not in the same category as the other stories, but again, the bigger question here is what kind of criteria can we use to judge the appropriateness of posting “news”? Would it have been inappropriate, for example, to have shared with someone in a personal conversation (“the news story I saw said…”)- is it a matter of having posted it online- or would the personal conversation been inappropriate, too?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
The controversy or kerfuffle:
The first filing title was: “Ron and Shelly Hamilton’s son Jonathan passes - possible suicide”
Then modified to: “Ron and Shelly Hamilton’s son Jonathan passes - ‘The deputy coroner says investigators have reason to believe Hamilton jumped’ ” (a direct quote from the article)
Doran’s response to one of the above was: “I think it is inappropriate to post speculation (and being in a news report does not make it something other than that). This lacks courtesy and good taste.”
I think Doran’s point - and I thought this at the time but didn’t say anything - was that posting the article would have been fine if it hadn’t mentioned that it was possibly suicide. In both cases Greg linked to in the OP (Hamilton and Warren), I didn’t feel like SI should mention that it was suicide - that he died was sufficient enough.
SI’s role is to aggregate news of interest. Jonathan’s death certainly qualifies as news, but the added information that it may have been suicide (when that had not been confirmed) was, IMO, completely unnecessary and needlessly injurious to the family and Jonathan’s reputation. It would be appropriate to note his death - and then add that information on later once it was confirmed (if even then - I’m not sure that I would have disclosed that in the headline and let the readers pick it up on their own through the story).
I do not agree that it should have been marked as a ‘prayer request’ when it’s reporting the news. ‘Prayer Requests’ are a lot different from reporting (which is, in essence, what the site did).
Greg asked the salient question:
I understand the need for respect and sympathy, which is why I’m asking the question. If the details are already public, what should be the procedure for disseminating them (or not)?
I think the principle of least necessary information applies. You give out as basic and factual info as possible, and do not mention things that are speculative or haven’t been confirmed yet. Once the speculation’s confirmed by two or three witnesses - then it’s ‘safe’ to put it out there, but even then there is a matter of presenting ugly truths in a courteous manner.
Just as an aside - this are the kind of thorny issues that the SI works through every single day behind the scenes, and I think that it’s good Greg is asking for feedback from the users.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
How important is that, exactly, that something be clearly identified as a “prayer request”?
I didn’t say it was important.
I do not agree that it should have been marked as a ‘prayer request’ when it’s reporting the news.
I didn’t say it should have been marked as a prayer request
Greg was likening the posting of the news items to sharing them as a prayer request at prayer meeting. In light of that I was simply pointing out that neither was headlined that way here on S/I. You both appear to agree with me on that.
I haven’t nor am I telling anyone what is appropriate for S/I or for personal conversation or for church prayer requests, etc. Greg, you’re a Christian husband, father, and pastor; you make those decisions for yourself. At no time did I say anything was inappropriate either here on S/I or in your church or private conversation. I simply suggested that what appeared to make one public news posting more objectionable than another was the source of the initial news story.
Thanks, Brenda, for the input.
And to be clear, this question isn’t about self-defense- I currently have no capacity for SI other than a normal member like anyone else. I have no publishing capabilities or moderator position or anything else. I am pondering these matters because I did appreciate the fact that SI made the news available (though I actually saw it at first because someone posted a link to the news story on Facebook).
To Jay’s point about simply mentioning that someone has died- I can understand on one level what you’re getting at. At the same time, what make one person’s losing a family member to death appropriate for widespread dissemination vs. not? Dr. Doran has made widely known via FB that his son was recently in a life-threatening accident, and kept people up to date through his recovery and even an arranged meeting with Detroit Tiger Justin Verlander- all of which is fine, and was good to know for prayer, but not something SI apparently felt was “newsworthy.”
The medium we are using allows news to travel fast- really fast. Again, look at how it factored into the NIU stuff that has happened. Does Olson get reinstated without the internet factor? I would say it was a significant contributor in the outcome of the story. Does the Tina Anderson case gain the momentum to get it back in court without the internet? This medium can be a powerful force- so I understand when some object to the way it is wielded.
At the same time, take it away from the cases at hand. If it would come to light that a seminary president’s wife had breast cancer, or that a high-profile IFB pastor’s son had becoming established in the SBC or even had converted to Roman Catholicism, or that a high-profile IFB church has __________ put on a concert… What makes something “newsworthy” and helpful in judging the landscape, versus becoming fuel for ungodly criticism and speculation?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion