After reading both the front page story and the letter from the editor in today’s April 16th issue of The Daily News, I am decidedly disappointed in how this story was handled. It is clear to me that there was no ill intention, and the letter from the editor gives me more certainty that the utmost respect was given to the story, but I don’t appreciate the results. Having seen some footage of the incident a few hours before reading the front page story, I was frustrated with the tone used to describe the incident, and the very different account it portrayed. The language used strikes me as poetic, and unhelpful in understanding the scale and facts of the situation. At first I wondered if this was intentional, and if the creative narration of events was meant to garner a greater reaction out of readers. That sort of reporting is unwanted, and reflects poorly on those involved on the whole news crew, which is why I wouldn’t suspect that this would be intentional. I give the benefit of the doubt that, of course, there was no intention to treat the story with anything but respect. Still I cannot say I am not dissapointed by this approach. I would hope for and expect that the worst events are those treated with the most clinical perspective and informational approach. As the editor said “We want you to remember why it’s important to be informed.”, and that is exactly right, but the kind of language used in this story is not conducive to informing as much as it is enticing distress. I hope that in future stories of great weight such as this, the public will be given only facts, and left to feel that weight on those facts alone.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Bradford Barclay
