Are journalists too invasive?

Question

most of us, listen to what they have to say, but is it really necessary to invade on our/someone else's grief to get a response into how they feel? Are they devoid of human contact and how would the reporter like it if they tables were turned so to speak.

Views please.

Answer 1

The purpose of a journalist is to bring a story to the people.  Quite often that means them interviewing someone on an intensely personal or sad story.  However, I think you will find that in most cases, the interviewee wants to tell their story - they don't want pity they want a vehicle to share what has happened to them.  I heard a very interesting programme on this exact subject on Radio 4 recently and it was fascinating.

Answer 2

YES

Answer 3

if they didn't there wouldn't be any news

its there job

Answer 4

In some cases definitely. I always look at them as the ones who put the bullet in the gun and let someone else pull the trigger. Their interference has broken many marriages which may have survived if not for the media. They have brought down good politicians, sportsmen, singers and such like for the sake of a story. I'm sure that if were allowed to search their laundry basket we would find juicy t*t-bits that would make the front page!

Answer 5

Yes there are times when they are far too invasive, but sometimes this is necessary to get the full picture on any particular story, they need to learn when to draw the line though and hold back a little, as sometimes they really do go to far.

Answer 6

Yes, in some circumstances, journalists are too invasive.  It's not necessarily their fault, after all, we live in a society that supports it.  When millions rush out each week to get the dirt on whatever celebrity happens to make the news, that money goes to support the magazine that publishes it, which in turn supports thousands of freelance photographers who stalk celebrities from day to day hoping to get a good shot.

As for international news, it would be hard to deliver an accurate story without being invasive.  In order to portray the news accurately, reporters have to submerge themselves into the gruesome details of each story they cover.  Without that experience, every story would just be a think piece filled with groundless opinions.  

I particularly don't care for the news; the CEO's of news companies try to be so unbiased as to portray both sides evenly to avoid stepping on any toes.  The problem with this is, most news is lopsided, and if it is to make a difference in the way it impacts our lives, it should be presented that way.  

If you want to make a change, quit watching the news, and leave it for the people who are unable to form an opinion on thier own.

Answer 7

Yes, but it's supply and demand.  If people didn't care less about a celebrity, or anything/anyone [for that matter], there wouldn't be a demand for the invasion of journalists.

Answer 8

Some of the are... but it is their job to get the whole story so I guess they have to be invasive. But I agree with you, personal issues shouldn't be touched by journalists because it is none of our business.

Answer 9

Yes, but I suppose that by nature of their jobs, they are paid to be.

Answer 10

Such interviews are pretty rare, and are generally done with considerable tact. Trust me, no one really likes doing it.

Anyone who has a famous relative die, for example, knows there may be a need for someone in the family to comment to the media, so someone is designated for that duty. And there's something to be said for getting good memories of a person out there.

Answer 11

If the information they are attempting to provide is of say, national interest, and will effect your heath and welfare then I think they should dig. If it is just to sell articles to the nosy and uniformed they are way out of line.