There is a video from TV coverage in Hong Kong that I imagine would likely make many of our readers irate. It is not something that we would run at the TV station I work for or on our web site. In fact, unless there were some very unusual circumstances, I doubt that few local stations in the US would run it.
I bring it up because it involves an interesting discussion that we have had before about camera access and freedom of the press. Rather than embed the video, I will provide a link for those who are interested in seeing it.
Before you decide whether you want to take a look, let me describe it. It is coverage of the high rise fire that killed four people, including two firefighters Sunday morning (Click here for FireGeezer’s coverage of the blaze).
On the video, besides seeing firefighters using various aerial devices to make numerous rescues, you see EMS doing CPR on the firefighters. Not from a distance, but up close and very personal. In fact, you will see a large group of photographers who are standing over a dead firefighter, running alongside the stretcher as he is raced toward an ambulance. Another shot has a photographer looking straight down on a dead firefighter on the ground with CPR being performed. It appears to be taken from some raised area like a low balcony or the roof of a live truck.
As many of you know, I don’t believe in censorship. If its in a public place, where the public is allowed to see it, you should be allowed to take pictures. I have to say though, that I have never seen anything quite like what is on this video.
I can imagine the photographers I know shooting the scene from a respectful distance. If it moves, we generally shoot it and then figure it all out later. As for airing it, it would be extremely unlikely, whether it is a firefighter or civilian.
When I first started in TV we would show CPR being performed, particularly if the person survived. The standards are such today, that you rarely see that video. There are times we show fire and EMS people obviously doing CPR, but in a way that you can’t see the patient (kind of like the shot in the Hong Kong video where there are so many photographers around the stretcher you can’t see the victim).
An interesting side note to all of this. We are coming up on the 20th anniversary of a fire in DC at 409 Missouri Avenue, NW. We have great video of firefighters saving three children and an adult, all in cardiac or respiratory arrest. All four were revived. One child later died. I am trying to work up a story looking back at that fire. Because of the standards that have changed, I am not sure what my bosses are going to allow me to show of the dramatic video from 1988.
Back to Hong Kong. I still think you really can’t censor this. It goes against what our country is about to let the government decide what is proper for the public to see. There are also aren’t any laws that will necessarily legislate good taste and sense.
I do think you can find legal ways to keep photographers from standing over top rescuers doing CPR as if they were angling for a shot of Britney Spears. If I saw any of my colleagues doing that, I imagine I would be pretty outraged.
Now, with all of the warning and the caveats, if you are really interested in seeing this video, here is the link. Please don’t shoot the messenger, just let me know what you think in the comments section below.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Very chilling. I agree that the content of this video clip is different that what is generally shown in the US. I am not outraged, but am saddened.
I have been a firefighter for over 20 yrs. Any time a firefighter dies, we all feel the loss. We here in the US hear occasional news of a firefighter in another country dying in the line of duty. Seeing the resusciation efforts on the downed firefighters brings it home for me. I felt as if I was there.
I am not offended by seeing the footage, however, I agree that the photographers were way too close. This wouldn't happen here. I am against censorship, but I am for respect and dignity being maintained. Also in the name of safety there should be lines established and maintained. Cameras have good telephoto features and they can zoom in while keeping the photographer at a safe and respectful distance.
In closing, I would like to extend my sincere condolences to the families (both their home and firehouse families) of Senior Firefighter Siu Wing-fong, 46, & Firefighter Chan Siu-lung, 25, who gave their all during rescue attempts. Rest in peace, Brothers.
Ken Scofield
CJCFPD
Blue Springs, MO
Thank you Ken.
I violated one of my personal basic rules of journalism (if that's what you want to call it) when I wrote this item. I described how people should feel or I thought they would feel when looking at this story, saying many would be "irate".
I have always hated when reporters, particularly those on TV, try to tell me what emotions I should have about a story. "You will find this next story shocking" is an example. Just tell the story and let the viewer or reader decide how they feel about it.
Your thoughtful comments are a good example of why I shouldn't lead the witness.
Statter
Okay Dave, I have to call you on this. In full disclosure, I have not watched this video as a comparison, so maybe it is worse. When the two Capitol police officers were shot and killed in '98 I vividly remember the news (I'm not saying it was 9 – but I know it was local news because I did not have cable) covering it live with cameras, close up and tight in, very clearly on the officers with CPR in progress as they were loaded off of the bus at WHC. It was not at a respectful distance and it was extremely graphic (as it was raw/live footage). I remember thinking "well, he is dead and I hope his family is not watching this." Now granted, this footage was not shown repeatedly (probably not again). We are not as pristine as we would like to think we are sometimes.
Oh, we are not pristine.
I only have a vague recollection of that shot and I don't recall it being that close (I was settling on my house that day).
Two thoughts on that specific incident. I believe it was a network crew. My comments are mostly about local news. Network, without the ties to the local community and having to answer to the local community usually operate under a different standard.
Sometimes things that are live or breaking get on the air, that with a little more thought probably wouldn't.
There is also the issue of the significance of the story. When the press secretary to the President of the United States was on the ground bleeding from an almost fatal head wound, or Robert Kennedy in a similar situation, the standard and the threshhold for this is likely different. Some may make that argument on a shooting at the Capitol.
What we show and why we show it should also have some meaning. If we choose to show something along those lines it should be for a reason more than being sensational. Here is an example. Since I have been at Channel 9 we had a policy that we don't show bodies or parts of bodies uncovered (these days we don't even show bagged bodies). Some local people may recall a police officer in Montgomery County who shot and killed a woman holding a bag of Doritos. Our station made the decision at the time, right or wrong, to show the woman's arm coming out from under the sheet holding the bag of chips. It told the story.
Thanks for your thoughts. By the way, I do think the Hong Kong one is much worse then the Capitol shooting (from my recollection).
Statter
I remember the raw footage from the Reagan shooting … with f-bombs flying.
I was expecting much worse after your preparatory remarks. I am not offended and appreciate anon 12:59 remarks about the impact of breaking news on the immediate family or emergency service fraternity.
I am concerned that we are creating a disneyland-style reality by not accurately showing what is happening in the community, the great and the awful. At least during the late evening broadcasts.
Yes, in a way I think there is an argument to be made that we are sanitizing things a bit too much.
But if we are going to show the firefighter rescuing the little girl, giving her mouth-to-mouth as she is brought out of the burning building, we can't very well say we are not going to do the same when a firefighter is the victim.
Maybe I have become so brainwashed by the complaints we get and the newer standards we have set, that I am part of the problem by thinking the pictures from Hong Kong are too much.
What I will stand by is that there is really no need to be running alongside the stretcher with a camera as if this was Britney getting in and out of a car.
Since no one, so far, is irate, are you all saying you would have no problem if your local TV station ran pictures like these of a firefighter in your community?
I would find that hard to believe. But then again I have became very cautious in my old age.
Statter
>I am concerned that we are
>creating a disneyland-style
>reality by not accurately showing
>what is happening in the
>community,
That fits in with my thoughts on it (before I even saw it was Mike's writing).
Our society has areas it's becoming increasingly dysfunctional from becoming detached from reality.
A large part of the PETA phenomena I am sure is simply people uncomfortable with death, because they've never seen death. In the case of animal activism specifically, if they have it's been by sensationalist videos…very few of the activists have ever taken a life themselves or grew up in a rural area of America (or urban area of the far east) where you're exposed to killing your own food more often.
Granted PETA is about animals, but few people are comfortable with human deaths either and our society is increasingly detached from those. It's not a new trend — mortality rates decline, war deaths decline, people die in hospitals instead of homes, wakes are held at funeral parlors instead of the decedent's own home.
That's why standards of what you're allowing yourselves to broadcast are changing — people are growing more uncomfortable with death.
That is not a good thing — when you're not comfortable with something and wish to avoid any thought of it, it often leads to irrational choices being made.
(Dal90 since this'll show up under my Blogger ID)
You know you are all scaring me. Where's the outrage?
I don't disagree with you. I think a dose of reality is good. In fact that is the basis behind my friend Frank Field's "Fire Is" video for kids. No Sparky or talking fire hydrant. It shows kids body bags, burns, and what fire is really like.
That said, don't you think there would be outrage from firefighters if my station ran something like that involving a local firefighter?
Statter
I was not offended by the video. I for one think that it not only puts a human face on those who lost their lives protecting others, but it drives home to the public the extreme risk and cost born by those sworn to proctect others.
My major complaint with this and other examples is the media's need to get in the way of those who are trying to help. I agree that swarming the stretcherin order to get a picture was at best unnecessary and at best obstructionist. I often wonder how a journalist can live with themself when they choose not to reach out to help their fellow man in order to get a good story or picture. This was the problem with the video you showed earlier of the man down in he parking lot. The people with he camera did nothing to help the man other than calling 911.
I feel that if the journalist is in the middle of the story and can help, he/she has a moral obligation to do so. They can always write a first-person account later. If the situation is such that entering the scene would not help, then feel free to film all you want.
As a Video Journalist AND a vol. Firefighter, I can see a lot wrong in this video. I dont think we should take it upon ourselves to be messengers of death..by putting something like this on tv as soon as possible after the event. I tell my producers to hold video on occasion when the victim is clearly identifible in the video..either through the vehicle the person was driving or when the victim themselves are identifible. I want to make sure the families are notified before we post something like this on air. Case in point. We had a world class arm wrestler die in a motorcycle axxy recently. The chopper he drove was very personallized and easily recognisable. It happened about an hour before airtime….I gave the producer only wide shots and distant shots for the first two newscasts…and made a second tape for later use AFTER the family had been notified. Not all photogs would have taken the time nor even realized the possible impact of airing the footage unchecked.
Second, WE as journalist have to realize that we CAN get the story and do our job without getting in the way..in most cases.
I don't think these types of videos should make it onto tv/internet.
If I understood you correctly, then you believe anything that happens in public view is fair game. That implies choice. I'm sure most of the victims wouldn't choose to be shot, burned, or injured in public. (Or in private.) It's beyond their control. Some of their care must take place in public view. I think a distinction needs to be made when there is an obvious "emergency."
This type if footage would never be allowed in a hospital, but because the victim hasn't been lucky enough to get there yet, it's okay?
People have a right to privacy, especially in times depicted in the video.
It's not about being in Disneyland. It's about respect for other people.