Image of grieving mother sparks debate over privacy:

[Praxius]

Image of grieving mother sparks debate over privacy

The image was plastered over newspapers and TV screens: a mother collapsing to her knees in grief as she learned her 15-year-old son had died after a Toronto school shooting. The photograph and video offered a close-up of the anguish of losing a loved one, sparking discussion of whether such personal grief should be made public. A family friend lashed out at media for their coverage of the shooting at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute that killed Jordan Manners Wednesday. He was found bleeding to death in the school hallway around 2:30 p.m. In a scathing interview with CBC Newsworld, Atiba Ralph accused the media outlets of acting like the death was a reality show. "This is not a joke, man, this is people's lives here." "You guys are like vultures around here. It's crazy," said Ralph. Reporters had already gathered outside Sunnybrook Hospital when the boy's mother, Lorraine Small, arrived. When she was told of her son's death, she collapsed. The image was plastered over newspapers and TV screens: a mother collapsing to her knees in grief as she learned her 15-year-old son had died after a Toronto school shooting. The photograph and video offered a close-up of the anguish of losing a loved one, sparking discussion of whether such personal grief should be made public. A family friend lashed out at media for their coverage of the shooting at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute that killed Jordan Manners Wednesday. He was found bleeding to death in the school hallway around 2:30 p.m. In a scathing interview with CBC Newsworld, Atiba Ralph accused the media outlets of acting like the death was a reality show. "This is not a joke, man, this is people's lives here." "You guys are like vultures around here. It's crazy," said Ralph. Reporters had already gathered outside Sunnybrook Hospital when the boy's mother, Lorraine Small, arrived. When she was told of her son's death, she collapsed. Continue Article Some media experts wonder whether the images or video would have been publicized if Small came from a different neighbourhood, instead of the Jane and Finch area reputed for its violence. "I have to ask the question, would we have shown the clip if it had been a white person? Would we have done this, intruding on someone's rights and privacy in that moment of grief?" said Nate Horowitz, dean of Centennial College's communications programs. He admits the argument can be made that such images relay an important part of the story, but they make him extremely uncomfortable. For Audette Sheppard, the TV footage brought back memories of her own son's shooting death in 2001. She was troubled by the images, but says Small should have been asked whether she wanted her suffering to be made so public. "You look at it one way, that maybe the impact of her suffering will probably be a catalyst to stop the perpetrators from doing stuff and seeing the mother's pain," said Sheppard. But she argues the decision shouldn't be about the media's interest. "Don't just show her at her lowest moment …. That's very troubling for me," said Sheppard, who now leads the group United Mothers Opposing Violence Everywhere. A day after the tragedy, Small did speak to media about her son's violent death and about how she was unable to make sense of losing her child.

Now besides this relating to school shootings and all that, this isn't the debate I want to start..... it's in regards to the title..... the privacy of those who lost someone and the rights of the media. Do you think it's right to be filming and covering someone and their reaction once they learn a child of theirs or someone they loved has died, or should they be given the respect of space and privacy to grieve properly without it being posted all over the country?

There are pros and cons to this as mentioned in the article, but what say youz?

[Osborn F Enready]

The media has an OBLIGATION to report the facts, and public reaction to the facts, so citizens can make informed opinions on current issues.

The people, have a right to privacy to the extent that can be legally justified.

Since the woman was photographed at a hospital, a public accesible place and a place where media can gather, I see no reason her "right to privacy" could be enacted here.

I don't think the media has license to invade privacy, such as photographing the woman in her own home, or ON HER PROPERTY, but that is covered in law already.

[5010]

"I have to ask the question, would we have shown the clip if it had been a white person? Would we have done this, intruding on someone's rights and privacy in that moment of grief?" said Nate Horowitz, dean of Centennial College's communications programs.

How can this issue have anything to do with race?

[improvident]

Geez osborn.. go ahead.. take the limelight.. lol

While i agree with osborn.. there is also another side to this.. i used to run around filming random nonsense with a few buddy's of mine my senior year of high school.. we did pranks stuts.. ect ect. teenage dumb shit if you will lol.. anyways we always thought about doing some big time public stuff.. mainly catching people's reactions to stupidity/crazy stuff.. anyways one thing we where always worried about was 'invading people's rights' .. so we looked into it.. and came up with the best legal consent form we could.. i dont know if that is something that is strictly in the US.. or even if the media has to abide by it.. but in order to show someones face or mention there name in a video they had to techincally sign a release form or say on camera that they woudl allow us to show it on our site...

Anyone else know anymore details?

[kingmea]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The media has an OBLIGATION to report the facts, and public reaction to the facts, so citizens can make informed opinions on current issues. The people, have a right to privacy to the extent that can be legally justified. Since the woman was photographed at a hospital, a public accesible place and a place where media can gather, I see no reason her "right to privacy" could be enacted here. I don't think the media has license to invade privacy, such as photographing the woman in her own home, or ON HER PROPERTY, but that is covered in law already.

The media doesn't have an obligation to do shit. Media is there for a sole reason---to make money. If taking pictures of people at it's lowest will get the most viewers/readers, then so be it. Unfortunately it wasn't unlawful for them to take pictures of her, but whether it is pure douchebaggery is another story.

[Duke1985]

When I was taking film classes I was always told you needed people's consent to be on video. Thus why when you watch cops not everyone's face is visible they need to blur some people's faces.

If this woman didn't want her face, her name, her image on TV she has that right, and in my opinion she has a right to sue everyone who decided to parade her all over the place.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kingmea said: The media doesn't have an obligation to do shit.

My fault, the media of today does not, correct.

A FREE-PRESS DOES.

Kingmea said: Media is there for a sole reason---to make money.

Yes, todays corporate owned and monopolized media has that goal, for their corporate paymasters who edit and oversee EVERY story that sees airtime. Then again, we don't have a national free-press anymore either.

Kingmea said: If taking pictures of people at it's lowest will get the most viewers/readers, then so be it. Unfortunately it wasn't unlawful for them to take pictures of her, but whether it is pure douchebaggery is another story.

Agreed, but I don't think it is in ANYWAY "douchbaggery" to show emotion in pictures or writing, as long as it is BOUND by objective facts.

[gw120]

What?! Media caring more about ratings than humans emotions?! Totally unexpected!

But anyways I want to know if the mother said it was okay to show the picture of her, if she said it was alright for the cameramen to follow her around then no harm done, if they on the other hand were unwelcome it's a total different story.

[Praxius]

Good points OZ... I think the main thing here is she should have been friggin told behind closed doors, not right then and there in front of the cameras.....

As it goes for further information.... a few days ago, a school there had a shooting.... one kid was shot (This womans son) and died.... no gun has been found, nor any suspects.

I'll dig up the actual article later, but as of today, this article relates:

Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca
Ottawa urged to ban handguns after shooting

TORONTO — Ontario politicians called on the federal government Thursday to get tough on handguns following a tragic high school shooting that claimed the life of a 15-year-old Toronto boy. "We have seen too many shootings result in too many funerals for our young people," Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote in an open letter to federal party leaders, urging them to push through proposed criminal justice legislation and implement a "real ban" on handguns. "Handguns are designed for one purpose only — to shoot people — and should have no place in Ontario or anywhere in Canada." Handguns are already severely restricted in Canada, and a handgun registry has been in force for more than 60 years. The Conservative government has already introduced a number of crime bills, including one to provide mandatory minimum sentences — which get higher for repeat offenders — for a range of crimes involving firearms. That bill is still before the House of Commons. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, who was in Germany on Thursday for a international meeting, offered his condolences to the victim’s family in a written statement. But the Ontario government is pressing for more action. The value of allowing handgun collections should be reconsidered, said Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant. "There’s got to be a balance between people’s property rights and personal responsibilities to others," he said. Currently, handguns in Canada are classified as either restricted or prohibited weapons. Canadians can receive a licence to own a restricted weapon if they can prove it’s part of a gun collection or used for target practice or target-shooting competitions. Only under "limited circumstances" can a person possess a restricted firearm for employment purposes, such as for a police officer, or for protection of a life. Toronto Mayor David Miller, who voiced his support for an outright ban, went a step further and recommended that handgun regulation should become an international issue. "We know that there’s two sources of guns used in Toronto: one is guns that are stolen from collectors, and the other is guns that come from the U.S.," Miller said. "The U.S. has to take some real steps, otherwise we’re going to keep seeing tragedies. . . . I mean, a 15-year-old boy. You know it’s absolutely tragic." Family and friends of the victim, Jordan Manners, were still reeling Thursday from the teen’s death. "I’ve lost my heart," Manners’ mother, Lorraine Small, told CBC TV. "My whole neighbourhood, they’re all behind me. Teachers from his school, I have to pull from them. Jordan’s friends, I have to pull from them. They’re my rock." Jodyanne Robinson, 15, who attended C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute with Manners, said the boy was looking forward to getting his driver’s licence. "He was just the sweetest little kid," Robinson said."He’s so quiet. And if you didn’t bother him, he didn’t bother you." Despite Wednesday’s fatal shooting, Miller maintained that Toronto schools remain safe and won’t have to move towards high-tech security systems, such as metal detectors found in many U.S. schools. "Canada is not the United States and as far as I’m concerned, collectively, we’re never going to let it become the United States," Miller said. The Toronto District School Board doesn’t intend to install metal detectors, said board assistant superintendent Donna Quan. Metal detectors aren’t foolproof, and students can bypass them by taking different doors, she said. Josias Guzman, another friend of Manners’, agreed that installing metal detectors would go one step too far. "It could maybe prevent future incidents, but it might be too harsh," Guzman said. But some students at the school, which lies in a poor area of Toronto noted for years for its high crime rate, said they are concerned about their safety and want increased school security. "You have cameras at traffic lights, but at school they have nothing," Robinson said. "It doesn’t make sense." Grade 11 student Richard Hamilton said: "If there were cameras, this wouldn’t have happened." Board trustee Stephanie Payne disagreed. "Cameras would not deter these kinds of incidents," she said outside the school. "They will happen anyway, whether there are cameras or not." C.W. Jefferys is already on a list of city schools scheduled to have security cameras installed. Of the 109 high schools in the Toronto District School Board, 65 have security cameras. Payne added that C.W. Jefferys is "one of the safest schools in Toronto."

Funny thing is... I already thought pistols were banned here..... but now with this article being added into this thread, I imagine this will start to open into a Gun Debate..... since it relates as well... I guess it's open season here for that debate as well..... let's just not forget the original topic though.

[improvident]

Anyone a Lynrd Skyrnd? Mr. Saturday Night Special.....

I honestly figured handguns would be illegal in Canada.. takes an act of god to buy one here in the states

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: Good points OZ... I think the main thing here is she should have been friggin told behind closed doors, not right then and there in front of the cameras.....

I agree, and that was the choice of the "teller", not the media or the "tell-ee".

A lot of people rant and rave about media doing whatever suits them to achieve ratings and advertising dollars.....

It did NOT used to be this way in broadcast media, as news was SEPERATE from advertising dollars and ratings......at least in the US.

Many of those who argue about how "unfree" the press is, has no idea of the way broadcast media in the US has been changed, and that those changes DIRECTLY LED to the crap news we have today, which is owned and operated on advertising dollars and ratings.