The story of the Metro train crash in Washington, D.C. this week is a horrific story. When I first heard of it, I immediately thought the crash was related to signal/switch error. At this present time they are investigating just that. It is evidenced that the train's operator Jeanice McMillan had indeed pressed the emergency brake in an attempt to slow down and stop the computer operated train. Nine people died and 80 were injured. The operator, Ms. McMillan, was a single mother and leaves behind a college-aged son. Why is it relevant and necessary for USA Today to report that the woman had been sued by her apartment complex several times for late payment of rent or to mention that she was financially stretched thin?! Why in God's green Earth is that relevant? Everyone they interviewed had nothing but kind words to say. This is a woman who is at the center of a deadly and tragic accident. But this had nothing to do with her financial situation. Many many many many people function properly on their jobs even while dealing with financial stresses at home. What the pluck?! I just don't understand this.
1 comment:
At some point this week I was wondering who determined that the media could be unaccountable? I mean, really?
Ah, now I remember what prompted the question. I was watching the local news as they described the JetBlue terminal at JFK a "dead zone". Police radios do not work in the terminal so Port Authority cops were given Nextel phones as a substitute.
The Nextel phones do not allow for as efficient communications as do police radios. The striking portions of this local news report came as they described in detail how this makes security in that terminal vulnerable. They essentially identified the target and provided a blue print for a criminal strike. Really?! I was baffled and amazed.
No one thought that they were providing too much information?!
Similarly, too much information was shared regarding the details of Jeanice McMillan's life. In this case, she has been disgraced. The media treated the details of her life with little regard all in the name of "reporting".
Where is the boundary? Albeit, it is an invisible boundary but I'd like a prominent demarcation. This boundary has been crossed in the media and is regularly crossed via the latest conduit for information sharing: the internet and namely in the social networking space.
We’re gonna blink again and these abnormalities will have pushed the boundary so far out that those who practice discretion and stewardship in information sharing will have to search far and wide to pinpoint where the boundary was originally laid.
Post a Comment