Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is a disgrace.
Fuck you, The Media.
Fuck you all the way to financial (as well as your already moral) bankruptcy.
Pretty abhorant. The attempts to create a story regarding the chap's medical is proper mud-slinging stuff.
Unfortunately until the investigation comes out, wouldn't be surprised to see more of this poorly thought out rubbish appearing.
Apparfently his colleagues leaked it on social media last week, at which point the herald and te Daily Record felt it was fair game to publish his details. and his employment history, and details of his daughter. Abhorrent stuff.
still, at least it has shut up those saying it was a man of 'muslim appearance' because those kind of people wouldn't believe that somebody with a name like that could possibly be muslim.
The poor man, his family and counselling team must be spending every day trying to keep him alive, because you'd just want to die if it was you, wouldn't you?
Is there any real sense of the cause of the accident yet? Think the assumed wisdom was that the driver had a heart attack but I haven't looked into it since...
Was off the grid a bit over Christmas so didn't keep up with the news.
I can't see why there should be an assumed blanket anonymity for cases like this.
I should probably declare that I have been a newspaper journalist for more than a decade.
His details would have been made public at some point anyway. I know that the inquest system is different in Scotland to that in England and Wales (someone else, I'm sure, would know more about this than me) but at some point during that inquiry he would probably be expected to give evidence publicly.
I agree that naming him has probably caused upset to his family - but there are sometimes equally damaging consequences of not naming someone. People gossip. Sometimes that gossip is wrong, or at the very least misleading, and that can be just as upsetting to families and friends. These days, people also gossip on social media, and in some cases those messages can be seen by everyone in the world - so a newspaper may be printing something that's already in the public domain.
This isn't intended to be some kind of blanket defence for everything the national papers do - I find a lot of it distasteful myself - but to say that newspapers naming someone=bad is a bit simplistic.
There shouldn't be blanket anonymity. but the discretion is there to protect somebody in extreme cases, or cases where there might be a risk of e.g. vigilante action.
Note that at this stage there is no suggestion that criminal charges will be brought. Not even a careless driving charge has been so much as mooted. Of course, the Fiscal won't make a final decision and announcement on this for another few weeks, possibly months.
As for it 'coming out eventually', I'm not so sure that a) this would be the case or b) that it justifies the further widespread propagation of his details by the press. in terms of a), he worked for one of the largest departments of the local council- on the day of the accident, hundreds of people who work in the cleansing dept will have known it was home, and will have gone home and told their families about what happened to Despite this, there was nothing leaked in the immediate aftermath. Also, notwithstanding his name being leaked accidentally last week,. it was apparently taken down, but not before it set off some kind of google alert klaxon at the Herald's offices. Finally, we don't have coroner's inquests in Scotland. it's a fatal accident enquiry, and it can be held in camera in certain circumstances, with the record redacted to protect certain details.
B) is just as I said it- whether or not it would have leaked out by word of mouth, one way to put an end to any kind of anonymity for him was to publish it.
my last thought on the matter- it was open to the driver to turn down the offer of anonymity and to 'come out'. he had clearly chosen not to do so while he struggles with the events of late December.
I gree that it would
fuck knows what I meant by that.
will have known it was home = will have known it was him
But as you said yourself, hundreds of people work in the same department and will have told their families. If that's the case then his identity was hardly a secret. I suspect the newspapers already knew who he was but held back until someone else made the information public.
Additionally, I know that fatal accident inquiries, just like inquests, can be held behind closed doors. However, that happens very, very, rarely (it's usually only if there is some kind of issue of national security) and exercising those powers simply because the driver feels bad about what has happened would be, in my view, poor practice. Those same grounds could be applied to hundreds of inquiries and inquests.
Given that his state of health is still likely to be very fragile, publishing his name and hounding his family and friends for comment will almost certainly harm his recovery.
in my eyes at least, by some coverty whispering/ net curtain twitching amongst the xtended circlwes of those who wored with him, and every single person in the land knowing his name, age, health record, employment history, and the details of his daughter and where she lives. As marckee said, some people will be interested, but it's not in the public interest. and actually, in Glasgow itself, I have heard nothing but horror and outrage at the press's decision.
It's not all that rare for FAIs to be held in private. I conducted one myself two years ago which was held in private so as not to prejudiuce another ongoing investigation into the partner of the deceased.
Also, this is much more than a driver 'feeling bad about what has happened'. What what I can gather, the police have at all times acted in conjunction with the advice given by his medical team and counsellors in deciding which process to follow. It's naïve and pretty disrespectful to assume this is just about sparing the driver's hurt feelings. I can understand however your need to defend your profession- that's totally natural and I don't agree with the kind of kneejerk 'fuck the gutter press' reaction that has been displayed in some quarters.
I've said my bit anyway.
I wouldn't normally stick my head over the parapet but it was a quiet morning - and I do actually have to do some proper work now!
there is no real reason to name him other than in an attempt to sell newspapers. Problem with (lots of)people these days is that they think everyone has a right to know everything. The evils of social media an all that.
are interested by it
And I think you've hit the nail on the head with your reference to social media.
During the Leveson inquiry, Leveson described the internet as the 'Elephant in the room' - in response, the Guardian described the whole Leveson inquiry as the 'tea hut in the elephant sanctuary'.
If stuff is already being talked about in social media, and is then repeated in a newspaper, then the press is only mirroring what is already out there in any case.
Don't think there's a need to call my morals into question. As I've said a couple of times, I don't agree with everything the national papers do.
Except that in a lot of cases their reporting methods + ways they present the story is anything but `mirroring`.
People who work in news media attempting to morally excuse and justify certain negative characteristics about `how newspapers report stuff` never works out particularly well. But at least you haven't gone down the `press freedom` route which a load of folk did post-Leveson. As if `press freedom` meant an automatic opt-out from moral obligations of fairness in both what is reported and how it was extracted etc. etc.
I've never agreed that press freedom means power without responsibility.
I'm grown-up enough (and I've been doing this job long enough) to know people don't like newspapers.
In any case, I don't plan on being a reporter for too much longer.
Although I also agree that the first step to `A Better News Media` is the public being more conscious about their newspaper consumption habits. Afterall (as I was saying on Friday) the relationship between newspapers and those who consume them is a very complex interplay between `what is selected for inclusion` and `what sells` with there being a blurred line as to what came first...
I've always thought that being a reporter is one of those jobs that has a kind of romantic perception about it, but that the reality can on occasion be gut-wrenchingly awful (but for the most part fairly humdrum. Like any job).
I don't think so.
For that reason, I'm out.
I don't think I'm a supporter of the Leveson proposals. I think there are probably sufficient laws in place to keep most excess in line. But, regardless of whether any laws have been broken in this instance, I lost faith in The Media as we know(/knew) it being a thing worth preserving a good while ago.
And Pegfeet is probably right, too. The shits.