Prev
Next

A fine line between reporting and milking a family’s grief

Tracey Spicer

by Tracey Spicer

15 Feb 06:00am

Must Reads

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies! - this is a caption

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies!

80

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil - this is a caption

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil

99

A few good men and The Gaps they face - this is a caption

A few good men and The Gaps they face

44

Filed under: 60 Minutes, Ethics, Media, Michael Usher, Natural Disasters, Queensland Floods

137 comments

The dramatic return of 60 Minutes on the weekend raises new questions about so-called “death knocks”.

It's hard to imagine any report could adequately capture the heartbreak of losing young Jessica Keep

In the first story, reporter Michael Usher interviews the Keep family, who last month lost baby Jessica and both grandmothers in the Grantham flooding.

The 23-month-old was torn from her pregnant mother’s arms. It is difficult to imagine a greater tragedy.

The interview with Matt and Stacey Keep is conducted with compassion and dignity. That is, until Usher takes the grieving mother to the nearby railway line where she lost her grip on her precious child.

It is almost unbearable to watch. The seven-months pregnant woman points to the spot where her leg became trapped under a sleeper, and she can’t hold on any longer.

“I’ll never forget it, that feeling, having your own child swept away from your arms and there’s nothing you can do. A piece of my heart that’s missing, I’ll never get it back,” she sobs.

As Stacey whispers, “if only, if only”, Usher does his best to comfort her. But the camera lingers too long. The grief is so raw. And the journalist, too much a part of the story.

The reporter-as-star style of the show is inappropriate in this instance. So too the promos, showing the hardened reporter dissolving into tears. 

I have no doubt that Usher’s emotions are real. But promoting the tears of someone looking through the window of grief, belittles the tragedy of those suffering.

In his blog, Usher is at pains to point out that the crew spent days with the family to make sure they were comfortable telling their story.

Death knocks can serve a worthwhile purpose. Matt Keep wants to pressure investigators to reveal why Grantham residents had no warning of the disaster. He also wants to raise money to build a playground to replace the one lost in the floods. (You can donate on www.granthamfloodsupport.com) These are noble aims.

British journalism lecturer Jackie Newton sums up why the death knock is a valid practice: “Most families actually want to speak to the media. After all, it’s their story – not yours. It gives you access to the people who actually count in the story, and you can be confident you have the facts.”

There will always be reporters who cross the line. I remember one, from Channel 7 in Melbourne, who’d routinely steal family photos from the homes of grieving relatives.

And what about this from former reporter Geraldine Hayward, writing in the Press Gazette: “I’d invite myself into your grief, trample around your tortured soul, grab a photograph, and zip back to the office to bang out 300 words of tastefully titillating obituary.”

It is up to the journalists, producers and TV executives to set appropriate boundaries. Perhaps this was simply too much, too soon.

Maybe it was the voyeuristic feel of the finished product. Or perhaps I’m oversensitive, as the mother of children of a similar age.

It was compelling television. But it felt like the network was trampling over a family’s grief in a desperate bid for ratings.

Most commented

271Class war: sounds crazy but it just might work
270Modern Christians can trump Bible thumping fundies
266Even New Zealand supports gay marriage
263Climate change and the crisis of communication
257Tell it to the court, Craig
24112 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
222Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
214Voters won't forget the way Labor has conducted itself

137 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:08am | 15/02/11

      Crocodile tears. For the media, it’s all about the ratings. For the audience, it’s disturbingly akin to voyeurism.

      With the rise of the Internet, families can express their grief - if they want to - without needing the approval of a producer or the insertion of a journalist. Unfortunately we have one foot in the last century, and many people still turn to television for entertainment. But this will change.

      Reply

    • deb says:

      09:20am | 15/02/11

      did u watch the program erick?
      i sure as eggs did Not see any false tears.all too real and heartbreaking.
      brave people and a lost baby.

    • MarK says:

      09:25am | 15/02/11

      “it’s all about the ratings”

      Only one more thing to add

      “The reporter-as-star style”

      That’s the other driver.

    • Erick says:

      11:46am | 15/02/11

      @deb

      No, I don’t watch TV in general, and still less would I want to watch something like this.

      My comment about “crocodile tears” was about the TV station, not the grieving family. The owners and managers do this for ratings.

    • Lisa says:

      09:36pm | 15/02/11

      we turned 60 mins off at the time of this story, we were in no way going to watch somthing likes this, how dare they do this interview for the sake of ratings, the most disgusting idea of a news story, will not be watching 60 mins again thanks to this disgusting idea of a “great story”, the lowest thing i’ve ever witnessed off or on tv

    • Ted Mulder says:

      08:19am | 16/02/11

      I hope that by now you will have read Michael Usher’s response to this article by Spicer and the ignorant comments it attracted. Because it is clear that not only has Spicer totally misjudged the process of the reporting, it is also clear that those ignorant comments have nothing to do with the sad story of the Keep family as much as an opportunity to do some media bashing for the hell of it. I am utterly disgusted by the sanctimonious and ignorant attitudes that this Spicer article has elicited. You lot are far worse mongrels for using this article to vent your selfcentred ignorance than whatever the 60 Minutes crew have been accused of.

    • acotrel says:

      08:33am | 16/02/11

      ‘shit happens’?

    • Wendy says:

      01:08pm | 16/02/11

      I would hope that from all the opinions voiced that some of you have actively participated in the rebuild of Qld, I can assure you that nobody would be speaking to the media unless they are comfortable with it, This is a very tight knit community and unless you have a valid reason to be in these areas , you are discouraged to enter the township.The tragedy from this family is enormous and should not be forgotten, the reason many people are speaking out is because this and many of the smaller communities that were flood effected are recieving minimal help, there is certainly help in some areas, but it is simply not enough, I am part of a group that is adopting families (around 200 so far) on a daily basis and helping them back into their homes, with furniture etc, (donated items )
      , some of these people still have no power, water ,toxic waste in their yards, they are still without basic amenities weeks after the event,.Have a look at what that families home was still like , weeks later, if 60 minutes brings some positive aid for these people then its been worthwhile.Some people find that it helps to talk, and if this family or any other is paid for the interviews and it helps buy their kids or family a bed to sleep in ” good on them, “and if you think that all these communities are sleeping comfortable,you are very much mistaken.

    • BofB says:

      05:25am | 15/02/11

      “But it felt like the network was trampling over a family’s grief in a desperate bid for ratings.” - that’s because they were.

      The networks have displayed how well they are at setting boundaries in the past week (not). I understand that the family may well wish to tell their story, and it’s probably one that should be told… if it were me, and these Vulchers were contacting me to “get in first”, I’d find it pretty disgusting.

      Reply

    • Julie says:

      02:52pm | 15/02/11

      I can’t fathom why people accept the media into their lives at such tragic times. I couldn’t imagine even being coherent if my personal nightmare were to come true.

    • Vaunted says:

      05:33am | 15/02/11

      We turned it off, a bridge much too far. What next, the grieving parents of kids that tragically died of cancer, or the widows and crying babies of car accident victims? This is current affairs? Pfft. It was a cynical, low budget ratings grab.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      05:59am | 15/02/11

      I cant understand why people caught up in such a nightmarish tragedy think they are under some obligation to talk to these ‘journalists”, at all,  let alone comply with a request - like they’re some how obliged to, so the network can obtain graphic footage to promote the story.
      This shows the insidios power of TV , the manipulation of people in extreme trauma by the producers and fixers.
      Maybe the crystal bucket s predominant place in our society has now led us to the stage that many feel obligated to it , in return.
      Hope its not the case, but..,

      Reply
    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      06:23am | 15/02/11

      Hey, TChong… I was on police rounds for a while, which included ‘death knocks’. Hated ‘em, of course - but you’d be surprised how often people want to tell their story, they’re so keen that their loved one is not forgotten. So I guess they see it as a sort of tribute.

      Believe it or not (and you’re right to be cynical!) we actually do have a code of ethics governing how we approach these situations. It’s just that in too many cases the drive to please bosses means people overstep the line.

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      07:23am | 15/02/11

      For once I am in agreement with TChong, this voyeur vision has crossed the line. To be honest, I thought they made the error of broadcasting the coverage from Marysville and with the line crossed they have not chosen to restore their honour. As you said Tory, you did the Death Knocks, but this was in the days before each reporter had a camera crew to record and extort every emotion in its rawest state.

      The media has crossed the line, the News directors have this belief that the line is no longer applicable, but it is. Like many other viewers I have just stopped watching these programs, this reduction in viewers must be hurting revenue (thats the only number they care about). Most channels had an after the floods special, pure death porn. People who want to see a wreck watch car racing, not a family suffering from the loss of their child.

    • TChong says:

      07:47am | 15/02/11

      Thanx for reply Tory.
      My criticism is more of the hold TV has on modern society
      I was thinking of the scene from “Brazil”, where Buttles is arrested instead of Tuttles ,and even during the trauma of the arrest, as soon as the TV came on, it was all consuming of everyones attention.
      Parody - sure, but not that far from reality.
      TV is now the confessional - Dr Phil, Oprah etc, as well as for some , the provider and redeemer.and validator of life.
      15 minutes of fame.
      BTW - in hospitals, when dealing with hurt, scared kiddies, the best analgesic and comforter is the TV.
      Good or bad, its the overwhelming influence of society.
      Maybe worth an article in itself Tory.

    • BK says:

      08:22am | 15/02/11

      I can’t understand why tv producers think we want to see grieving people, crying their eyes out. I always change channel.

    • Zeta says:

      08:58am | 15/02/11

      @ Tory - I think you and I both know it’s not reporters wanting to please bosses that leads to sketchy behaviour to get death knocks done - it’s the screaming of Chiefs of Staff on the other end of the phone.

      I know there is a code of ethics, I’ve probably got a copy in my office next to my own industry’s code ethics, my framed Bachelor’s degree, and all the other shit I’ve never, ever used.

      21 year old cadet reporter gets sent out to death knock a family who doesn’t want to talk, and they’re told not to show their face in the news room unless they come back with copy? I’m sure that code of ethics gets brought out straight away. I can hear the CoS right now: ‘Oh, listen, that’s fine, easily replaceable 21 year old from the Journalism course that generates over 15,000 graduates each year for an industry with barely a hundred vacancies, you come back now, don’t debase yourself any longer. We under stand.’ Yeah. Right. 

      And I’m not cynical. Maybe things are different in Adelaide. I imagine South Australian news rooms as being made of mahogany with nice old leather bound books everywhere, and calm, serious journalists reporting on ecumenical matters and respectfully investigating the daily school girl murder.

      But here in Sydney, our newsrooms are like Al Jazeera meets Taibi-era The eXile. You’re dodging road side bombs and your editors are doing more cocaine than the criminals you’re being sent out to report on.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      09:43am | 15/02/11

      @TChong - I agree. That would be a great piece.. hmm… I’ll add it to the list of ideas we gleaned from the Open Thread the other day, thanks.

      @Zeta - brilliant as usual. By “pleasing the bosses” I was talking about appeasing the COS, of course. And I agree - there’s an impossible imbalance of power with young cadets, who often struggle to stand up to the newsdesk’s demands. But by the same token, that’s where the Code is actually useful, when wielded in defence.

      Personally I have never been punished for resisting what I saw as inappropriate demands and - trust me - I’m a real pain in the arse.

    • Loulou says:

      10:10am | 15/02/11

      I understand her wanting to talk about it, to an extent, when my brother died, I found that talking about him to friends, family etc was an important part of the grieving process - there was no Usher, nor was it broadcast across the country.. but still.

      I think that they well and truly crossed the line taking the mother back to the place where she lost her child, pretty much just to film her breaking down.
      That’s where the facade of ‘caring about the victims story’ was lost, you can’t write that one off as a tribute. It’s a heinous ratings grab, made only more heinous by the fact they threw a music megastar in there to further bump up the ratings.

    • Bobster says:

      01:13pm | 15/02/11

      TChong,

      You ever looked at the obits in your local paper? A lot of people pay money to put their feelings in print.

      How is there anything wrong with the media offering the opportunity to publicise your feelings more prominently, and for free?

      A lot of people find it cathartic.

    • Michael says:

      02:55pm | 15/02/11

      The problem Tory is how can someone in a shatteed state such as this make an informed decision? People may want to talk about it, to get it out as part of the grieving process but its opportunistic ‘journalism’ that will grab that opportunity and run with it for nothing else than ratings.  Seriously where was the integrity when they took her to the spot where she lost her child? It was not necessary for the truth of the story.
      @Bobster below - Its their decision to place something in the obituaries, it stems from within and is not effected by someone knocking on your door, pretending to be sympathetic and blasting your emotions to all and sundry. Like I said before most people can not possibly make a well thought out decision in the grip of such sorrow. I know I couldnt.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:40pm | 15/02/11

      @ Tory: Thank you for proving my long-held theorem that you can only be as honest or as ethical as your boss.

    • Bobster says:

      11:40am | 16/02/11

      I’m going to give a bit too much personal information about myself away here, Michael.

      There are two common responses to the death knock and more than one way of going about it - you make up your mind how to tackle it based on the newsworthiness of the issue.

      The first, and most commonly seen (although in my experience the least commonly practiced) is the actual, physical death knock.

      That is, knocking on the door of the family and asking for comment. I have seen the tabloid and news media actually camp out on people’s lawn to achieve this - it tends not to work.

      The other method is to make contact with a family friend, relative, neighbour, uncle, aunt or the like, or, if it’s there, a sporting club, service club or other local group of which you know the person in question was part.

      These people will be presented with a request along the lines of “there is a lot of talk in the community out there, we would like to offer you the opportunity to put your thoughts in print and pay tribute to your loved one so you can get in ahead of the rumour mill. Here are my details, could you pass them on to the family and let them know we are happy to help. If they don’t want to, then that’s fine,” or words to that effect.

      Sometimes they are grateful, sometimes they decline, sometimes they don’t say a thing. Once or twice I’ve been abused, but hey, that’s fair enough - it’s a damn difficult time.

      It is patronising and arrogant in the extreme to suggest people in these situations are not capable of making this decision for themselves.

      Now, if you happen to have a complete f—-wit CoS to deal with, there are ways around that as well - talk to the sporting club about the effect it has had there, ask them to inform the family it will be in the paper/on TV, ask the service clubs.

      With major events the public has a right to know, the rumour mill must be stopped and journalists and the broader media have a responsibility to try to get to the practical truth of the matter.

      To say a grieving family - the only people at the centre of a given issue in some cases, should not be tactfully offered the ability to share their feelings is, in my view, utterly offensive.

    • Kathy says:

      06:03am | 15/02/11

      I agree & Kyle Sandilands is top of the list

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      01:58pm | 15/02/11

      What has Kyle Sandilands got to do with it. I find it amusing that a radio DJ gets crucified regularly even though there is no mistake about what you will get if you tune into him. He is also one of the most harmless people in the media, he is not a journalist, he is an ‘entertainer’ of sorts. I’m no Sandilands fan, but I consider the news and current affairs programs to be a far worse evil. It is these shows which are promoted as if they are responsible news programs, yet in reality they are muck raking, gutter trash journalism. People consider them credible sources of information, which is downright scary as the truth is the least important thing to the people who run these shows.

    • Pete says:

      06:08am | 15/02/11

      Tell us if you would be outspoken if it would have been a network you were working at, at the time.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      12:31pm | 15/02/11

      Just because somebody calling out something they might have been guilty for makes them a hypocrite, doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

    • Jade says:

      06:36am | 15/02/11

      This is one of the stories that makes me have to fight back tears every time I hear it.  I can’t imagine what that poor woman goes through every day and what she felt when that happen. Just devastating.

      I don’t think it was right that 60 minutes interviewed them, all they want is the ratings, they don’t care about what this family is going through.  They hang around for a few days, get their story and go home.  They don’t have to live with it after.

      The families of these tragedies, of all tragedies need time to heal.  While talking about thing does help, it should be done in private not on TV.

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      06:49am | 15/02/11

      The problem is us.  As long as we keep watching, sending the ratings up, the networks will continue to air or print this massive invasion of a family.  Tory you are wrong to a degree, yes they need to rttalk about it, but not to reporters. They need to talk to people equiped to help them, not to someone with microphone at the ready only to become tomorrow’s consignment to the recycle bin.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      08:44am | 15/02/11

      I totally agree Pete. I called this just off the promo. The ad had just as much footage of a crying Usher as there was of the crying mother. For that reason I did not watch, but it was difficult not to because I really feel for this lady. I want to know her story out of respect for her daughter and her family’s loss, but I don’t want to perpetuate this problem. It is rubbernecking within the home. We watch because of a morbid sense that we are going to regret not looking at it. Just because we choose to watch it doesn’t mean it is the best for us - even as mature rational adults.

      A friend of mine recently witnessed a man commit suicide by running in front of a truck on a 80km/hr stretch of road. He turned in time to not see the impact, but went out of his way to look at the body. He didn’t have to, but he said he was compelled to do it and in the stress of waiting for emergency services he did. He now regrets it very much. I think this kind of television is a very mild form of this morbid curiosity that we all have. So I think we have to rely on the censors/stations to take it off the air as if it is put in front of us, we will always watch.

    • mary says:

      04:04pm | 15/02/11

      @fairsfair re the morbid curiosity; it’s time for a growth spurt for me at least.
      I hadn’t seen my dad for ten years or so and went overseas for his funeral. Before the funeral I went to the morgue to view the body. For the next ten years or so all I could see was this image of my deceased dad’s face before I went to sleep. It’s worn off now.

      Why do it to ourselves? I know what images I rather have in my head.

      And obviously that was not morbid curiosity but a, what I now feel ‘misplaced’ gesture of paying respect.

    • Ron says:

      06:52am | 15/02/11

      They hung around the family - FOR DAYS!!??  Good Grief!

      Reply

    • PD says:

      12:20pm | 15/02/11

      Good, valuable grief in this case, it seems.

    • Cath says:

      07:39am | 15/02/11

      I actually think 60 Minutes did the story as well as it could have been done, given what it was about.

      For some families, speaking to the media is cathartic and a way of working through the grief. You never know what you’ll do unti you’re in the situation. However, I absolutely agree that they shouldn’t be taken advantage of by immoral reporters. Stealing photos? Yuck.

      Obviously time will tell and perhaps the Keep family will regret its decision to speak out in this way. I hope not… I hope it helps them to heal as best they can (and I say that knowing that you can never fully recover from a tragedy such a this…)

      Reply

    • JBA says:

      07:25pm | 15/02/11

      I agree Cath - I watched it because there had been so much in the press about this story already. I had thought about this little girl every day since the tragic event (having a daughter the same age made it hard not to) and in a way I wanted to see the family for myself and see how they were doing. This story has gone around the world and all around Australia - the Keep family said they wanted to tell it and tell it once and this is what they have done. Considering how much sadness this story has made me feel I’m not surprised that Michael Usher was in tears and don’t believe they were crocodile tears. I think we’d be foolish not to think these programs don’t cover such stories for ratings - that’s how they all operate - however I don’t believe anyone could know this story and this family without feeling genuine compassion and utter sadness. I can’t imagine this story could have been told without genuine raw emotion - that is what it evokes in people - those with a heart anyway. We can’t assume that Stacy didn’t want to visit the railway line or have it filmed and surely if she didn’t she would have said so - she comes across as a very strong and brave woman - not a pushover. I also don’t imagine that they would have let it gone to air if they weren’t happy with the content.

      Let’s all stop being so insensitive for a minute and remember this is a child (and two grandmother’s) lives we’re talking about - the Keep family wanted to do this story - let’s allow them to have told it without the disrespect of cynicism.

    • mary says:

      07:41am | 15/02/11

      //It is up to the journalists, producers and TV executives to set appropriate boundaries. //

      I disagree. It’s up to us, the people to set appropriate boundaries. The media is just another business, prepared to make another dollar.

      It’s up to us, the people to say; no, you’re not going there, this is private and has nothing to do with you or any one else.

      And thankfully this is starting to happen with people taking control of how to deal with their own grief without the PRYING eyes of GREEDY media. When certain towns were closed off to the public after the disaster (flood/cyclone) hit.

      Media is just another business in for a buck. To see it for anything else is not very intelligent. To expect them to self monitor goes in directly against their interests .. I’m not holding my breath.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      08:59am | 15/02/11

      Mary, I watched mediawatch last night and it was pretty much all about Channel 7’s treatment of Abbott and Campbell last year. There was so much public uproar about last year’s event and two (yes only TWO) people lodged a formal complaint with the regulator. The regulator returned a bogus decision on those two complaints (thats a whole other matter), but I was absolutely gobsmacked that of all the people whinging, only two people in this entire country actually went through with it.

      Clearly TIO o whoever the regulator is, does not have our back. I don’t think we can expect them to self regulate, only if it is inline with ratings. So you are right, it is up to us. The issue is whether or not the material is in the public’s best interests and I think it scary to think that some big wig at channel 7 is responsible for determining what is our “best interests”. If you think about what they do show, imagine what they don’t.

    • Loulou says:

      10:12am | 15/02/11

      FYI Mary - Grantham was open to the media before it was open to the residents.

    • Melina says:

      08:15am | 15/02/11

      HI Tracey, well said. I felt the same. It was such an emotional story, but to hear my husband explode ‘why are they putting her through that!’ brought it home. Just unbearable. And to see the promotion during the week.
      Great piece.

      Reply

    • Cunnegonde says:

      08:32am | 15/02/11

      I disagree with most of you; every single day I wonder how are these people coping, they have absolutely nothing in their name, and I do want to know and share their grief.And we help as much as we can.And I am sure it helps the families as well to share with us? And for media hater like me to say that Usher was genuine is a big ask, but I do believe he was sincere.I like to hang my cynic hat for a moment and dont believe that even media could be that insensitive.

      Reply

    • over it says:

      08:52am | 15/02/11

      Just because you WANT to kow, doesn’t mean you HAVE to know. Maybe I want to know your business, does that mean I automatically have the right to know it? You want to know and share their grief? Why? Its their grief, why should they “share” it with you?
      I respect their rihgt to privacy, and I often wonder why some people give it up so easily.

    • Loulou says:

      10:15am | 15/02/11

      I agree that Usher was genuine from what I saw - which wasn’t very much. But the point is, why do they need a megamusic star as a correspondent on a story that’s so emotional? It was a inappropriate & just lacked tact in my opinion, they devalued her entire story with big flashy music star.

    • over it says:

      12:08pm | 15/02/11

      @loulou…
      are you serious?
      nah, u gotta be a troll, because otherwise, you have to be a dumb as a post.
      (shakes head in despair for the future of the world)

    • Tony Bee says:

      08:45am | 15/02/11

      I remember many years ago applying for a cadetship at The Advertiser (Adelaide). One of the interview questions was how I would approach a mother for a story after her children have drowned in a boating accident. I was surprised by the question at the time and couldn’t give an adequate response. Of course, now I know the answer is you point out that by publicising what happened you may prevent similar tragedies, but does that make it right?

      Reply

    • hermes says:

      08:51am | 15/02/11

      The problem is broader than that; I feel deeply for the grief of the family, and cannot begin to understand how terrible it must have beenfor them. However, I am not anti public grieving…that is a person’s own choice, and is also practised in many communities. But what I am totally against is the trivialising of grief, and emotion by TV stations such as 7 and 9. For example, the deep grief of the Keep family is totally understandable, and anyone with a heart, even the reporter, would have to empathise with their pain. However, these TV channels delight in showing people supposedly grieving over the most ridiculous and trivial things; their interviewees routinely burst into pitiful tears for nonsensical reasons, such as being kicked off reality TV programs or minor events which happened years ago. This sort of reporting only leads to cynicism, and devalues real emotion. No wonder people are cynical about televised emotion, when so much of it is so patently fake.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      09:08am | 15/02/11

      I didn’t watch the report so cannot comment on it but I have noticed how the networks are getting more desperate for ratings. They are in a fight just to stay relevant against the Internet. This situation will only get worse for them.
      TV is dying.

      Reply

    • Debs says:

      09:28am | 16/02/11

      I agree Dan - the stories are getting more and more dramatic as time goes on, in the bid for ratings ... media coverage during the whole Qld flood crisis and subsequent cyclones was painfully repetitive and to have reporters walking into people’s homes as they were trying to clean up was simply predatory.  I stopped watching, and kept up with the latest on the net instead (because the choice was mine as to how much I read).  Further, flooding lost it’s “flavour of the month” when Yasi hit Nth Qld and there was barely any coverage about the subsequent flooding down south.  I agree that TV is dying - I can go for weeks without turning the TV on, and I don’t miss a thing thanks to the net!!

    • julie says:

      09:19am | 15/02/11

      All stories like this are for ratings. All stories like this are trying to squeeze every last drop of emotion they can get out of it.  Channel 9 seems to do this all the time.  I turned off Channel 9 and Ray Martin when in an interview after Port Arthur, he again and again asked a person who was involved, trying to get some emotive quotes out of him ...... “And .... was it really awful?” Something like that, just trying desperately to get the words out of this poor guy that was just so drawn and drained.  It was pathetic. 
      I dont watch TV like this. It’s not a comment on what people have gone through. But to me, it’s private, and it’s all subjective. I can empathise and feel for these people, but I dont need a blow by blow description drawn out by a reporter trying to get the highest emotional content for a story.
      It’s all showbiz and it’s a tad pathetic when TV and ‘news’ jump on these stories.

      Reply

    • sneakers says:

      09:29am | 15/02/11

      “It was compelling television. But it felt like the network was trampling over a family’s grief in a desperate bid for ratings.”

      Wow, another one? Who’dathunkit?

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      09:31am | 15/02/11

      Is there no depths to which Channels 7 & 9 will sink in their quest for ratings?
      Last week we had Channel 7 with Mark Riley & his totally out of context “Shit Happensämbush of Tony Abbott. For that Riley should have been sacked.
      Now we have Channel 9 with Michael Usher & his totally insensitive, seemingly another ambush, of this grieving parent.
      This was deliberate, ratings-grab gutter reporting.
      This was not, nor ever will be, journalism.
      Usher shoul also be sacked.
      There are plenty of others who would do a better job than either Riley or Usher.
      Channel 7 started our list of “TV Channels Never to Watch”.
      After Channel 9’s Insensitive, gutter scraping 60 Minutes programme Channel 9 becomes #2!

      Reply

    • Michael Collins says:

      09:31am | 15/02/11

      This was the same woman that featured in the Seven Program the previous Sunday. No doubt both shows will use the respective footage over and over again to promote their journalistic credentials

      I strongly object to journalist being the focus of stories - a disturbing trend continued by a lot of lite weight shows like Today and Sunrise.

      Can we see a return of real journalists doing real journalism with dignity and respect.

      Reply

    • Reggieman says:

      09:40am | 15/02/11

      I worked in TV news for a number of years and I can tell you the worst part of our jobs (and there were many bad parts) were the death knocks. Some journos handled it very well, and hated doing them as much as the crew, but others attacked them with relish. I remember one journo posing as a police officer to gain a photo of the deceased from the non-english speaking widow. He showed not one shred of decency and remorse, and was only found out because a rival network journo had a grudge against him and his network and so secretly filmed him doing it. The guy was reprimanded, but not fired. The chiefs of staff and producers love to see tears flowing from family members and so the first order of business after a tragedy is the death knock. It’s sickening, but that’s what TV news is. Voyeurism dressed as “the public needs to know” altruism.

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      09:46am | 15/02/11

      This is a story that bought home the horror of the floods very clearly. 

      It was a story that was also about the joy and miracle of the two children surviving.

      Listening to the cynical remarks about the PM, who was closely involved with those affected by the floods and its horrors, tears being fake.

      Why are we so uncomfortable when reality is portrayed.

      I am sure the parents would not have agreed to being interviewed unless they felt something good would come out of it.

      Reply

    • Linda says:

      10:14am | 15/02/11

      TV & Radio is meant to play on your emotions.  Why do you think shows like A Current Affair & Today Tonight have high ratings.  It’s you the public that like to see other people going through emotions be it happy or sad.  It you the public that keep these shows going.  Think of the soapies you watch, they get their highest ratings when a long standing favourite character dies.  This is what humans do, it allows us to feel empathy for tragedy &  to be grateful for what you do have & blessed that it hasn’t happend to you.  As much as your all bagging what some reporters & shows cover the ratings of these shows show you that that’s want the majority of the public want to see or hear.

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      12:50pm | 15/02/11

      Maybe our emotions need a little playing on. Reading comments from many on this site and others.  It might make some of us more human.

      Today’s little exercise of turning the funerals of twelve people, including babies into a political outcry.

      Prople do have a turn off switch on their televisions.

    • Henry says:

      10:24am | 15/02/11

      Gillard’s fake tears while holding the flag will live in infamy as the low point of vile, sly opportunism for popularity in Australian politics.

      There is nothing this sociopath creep wont do for power. Knife an elected PM. cry for ratings… whatever it takes.

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      11:27am | 15/02/11

      Please watch last Sunday 60 Minutes.  It is hard to believe that someone who was closely involved in the aftermath would not be affected. 

      If this does not stir your heart, take time to look at the documentary on the helicopters rescuers, which PM Gillard was commenting on.

      I suggest Henry, you find more suitable matters to politicise, this is not a worthy cause.

    • Jade says:

      02:30pm | 15/02/11

      Joolya wasn’t closely involved though Catching up.  She came up here, walked around looking bored then went home.

    • Ryan says:

      10:49am | 15/02/11

      We have truly become one sick society!

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:18am | 15/02/11

      Depends upon whether the family got paid for it. If they got paid for it then it is strictly a commercial transaction, the forfeiture of privacy in return for renumeration. In my opinion, the public disclosure of private grieving is not worth any perceived benefits, financial or otherwise, but that is not my decision to make, only the family in question.

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      12:54pm | 15/02/11

      What difference does that make. 

      Are you saying the story is faked. 

      I am sure they have pressing needs to spending any money on, even if it is graves stones for their mothers and baby.

    • Euripides says:

      11:18am | 15/02/11

      Tory I’ve never spoken out about what what happened years ago to our family following an explosion that almost fatally injured one of our children, but it’s still there and it always rankles when I dredge it up. My wife and I had our hands full at the hospital in the immediate aftermath and we weren’t interested in talking to the media, so instead the TV news crews (Channel 7 in particular) taped and voiced over ‘tragic’ images of the kids’ toys and our ‘abandoned’ family dog in the fenced back yard, and even into the windows of our ‘humble’ locked cottage. I fail to see what possible public good was served, and it caused my wife and me needless concern and further grief at a time when we least needed it. I thought the 60 Minutes interview with the grieving mother was disgraceful, because again, what possible good was achieved? If the channel feels so strongly about what was an obvious tragedy, what about taking the angle of leading a fund raising to allow the public to show its support and sympathy, and to help the family out? At least we’d end up thinking more of them than we now do. As it is, 60 Minutes has done a Channel 7 as far as I’m concerned, and I’ll be avoiding both like the plague in future.

      Reply

    • Aitch says:

      11:41am | 15/02/11

      Make no mistake, the mainstream commercial media considers the grief of others a commodity to be exploited for circulation/ratings. It’s why producers and journalists like Michael Usher go in after a disaster in search of the most emotional, tear-jerking stories they can find. It’s why, when such grief porn is bagged by media outlets, they promote the hell out of it for days – in prime time – and in this case, linger on a tearful reporter. “Hey folks, this story is sooooo bloody emotional it even made our journo cry! Tune in and check it out at 7.30pm on Sunday!”
      I’d love to know where the public interest lay in dissecting this poor family’s unfathomable pain? The people at 60 Minutes might say, “Oh, oh, it’s in Matt Keep’s desire to find out why there was no warning and his wish to raise money to build a playground.” (this aspect of the story came at the end, almost like an afterthought).  Well, if that was indeed the case, why didn’t they promote that aspect of the story instead of Michael Ushers tears? It’s because the public interest doesn’t rate, it doesn’t sell. Grief sells. Drama and sensation sells. A choked-up reporter sells, be his tears reptilian or genuine (and who would really know other than Michael Usher?) This is why shows like 60 Minutes shell out tens of thousands of dollars to secure such stories exclusively. The last thing 60 Minutes would have wanted is Channel Seven’s Sunday Night to have had a slice of the Keep’s suffering. I’d like to know whether or not 60 Minutes paid the Keeps. If they didn’t, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
      I just watched the story on the web and I think it’s worth pointing out a few things. In his intro, Michael Usher said, “There’s nothing you can say or do to make things better. So we just listened, and we cried bucket-loads, and we tried to focus on the little miracles of that dreadful day.”
      • Utter bulls**t. He didn’t “just listen” – he prompted the poor couple for emotional responses, egging them on when they were lost for words. He fed the shell-shocked Keeps cues for their anguish. Mercenary. Utterly appalling.
      • He didn’t try to “focus on the little miracles”. Watch the story and see where the overwhelming focus was. I reckon it was easily 90 per cent on the Keep’s suffering. For instance, after Usher said gravely, “Then, the cruelest blow of all …” they aired almost two minutes of Stacey Keep reliving her nightmare at the railway where she lost her daughter. TWO MINUTES! I wonder how long they kept her out there until they had what they needed. She looked a reluctant participant to me, but maybe she was right into it - I don’t know.  “Oh God, that’s just a terrible moment,” Usher continued as an almost speechless Stacey wept. So terrible was the moment that it became the centerpiece of his story – grief porn for the masses and ratings fodder for Channel 9. The 60 Minutes camera zoomed in when she cried, buried her face in her hands and wiped away tears. Usher, of course, was so moved, he put his arm around her and kissed her head. Retch! But, naturally, a lot of the “focus” had to be on Michael Usher – after all, he’s a big part of the story (remember the promo?). But 60 Minutes also took time to “focus” on Jessica Keep’s little coffin, they “focussed” on the muddied and ruined copy of the Cat in The Hat and they “focussed” on the silt-ladden teddy bear in the Keep’s home. If “focussing on the little miracles” meant interviewing the Keeps young children about the horror of losing their baby sister and both grandmothers (hey, it was a miracle the OTHER two kids survived, eh?), then Michal Usher need to pull a good focus on himself.
      • In his intro, Usher also declared the Keep’s story “the most horrific, heart-wrenching moment of the Queensland flood disaster” as if to say, “Hey, we aced it! We’ve got the best grief porn right here on 60 Minutes.” The Keep’s losses are immense, but should Usher be holding theirs aloft, above the 30–odd other people who died and whose families have also suffered?

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      12:47pm | 15/02/11

      “Grief porn for the masses and ratings fodder for Channel 9.”

      Quote of the day.

    • Brian Anderson says:

      11:44am | 15/02/11

      I refer to news rooms as dog kennels and we know who the dogs are..

      Reply

    • jacked up at nines parasites. says:

      11:47am | 15/02/11

      welcome to channel nine , this has been happening for years, 60 minutes / ACA have been doing this for years just to get viewers in , they care little flor the people in question.

      the word is bottom feeders and parasites .

      just look at grinshaw

      Reply

    • Kate Marshall says:

      11:48am | 15/02/11

      I used to work as a journalist and I rarely had a family turn me down when I did a death knock, even though I hated them and wished they would.  Often the grief-stricken family members would talk, and talk and talk as if glad to have someone listen and ask questions. 

      Perhaps a reporter showing up at their door during the worst time in their life was an acknowledgement of the immensity and importance of the situation they found themselves in.

      Reply

    • JustSaying says:

      11:58am | 15/02/11

      I sat down in front of the TV, watched 5 minutes of 60 minutes exploiting the situation and changed the channel.  More of this 60 Minutes and I won’t watch the show at all anymore.

      Reply

    • BobM says:

      12:00pm | 15/02/11

      It was actually the second story. The first story was about the Qantas incident in Singapore last year where the engine blew up. I watched that story and then turned off the tv - too voyeuristic watching a mother grieving the tragic loss of her child. Why would you want to watch that?

      Reply

    • PD says:

      12:17pm | 15/02/11

      I still remember a ch9 reporter (I think Steve Barrett) going into a bereaved family’s home with a camera which caught him cynically misleading the family. He took a photo of the dead child from a frame saying it was needed for ‘police purposes’.

      Reply

    • Reggieman says:

      02:58pm | 15/02/11

      Yes, I mentioned that incident in my earlier post. It was him. I worked with him often and he was that kind of guy. But he was old school. People like Damien Ryan and Simon Bouda hated doing them and always treated the families with respect.

    • Zeta says:

      03:27pm | 15/02/11

      To be fair to Barrett, he also exposed some of the worst Police corruption in NSW. So you do need that particular brand of bastardry around.

    • St. Michael says:

      08:53pm | 15/02/11

      @ Zeta: apples and oranges, mate.  Corrupt cops only deserve and should expect deception practiced against them, since by definition they are deceiving the public who pays (part) of their wages.  Taking dead kids’ photographs is another matter entirely.  No, we don’t need that kind of bastard(ry) around.

    • Leah says:

      12:33pm | 15/02/11

      When I did my journalism degree, my lecturer (who had worked as lecturer for many years) told us “death knocks” were situations when the journalist was actually the one to break the news of the person’s death to the family (ie. before police got there) for the sake of a good story.  She went to great lengths to emphasise that as it’s against the ethical code, a journalist who is told to do this by their editor is completely within their rights to refuse (but that often editors will pick on rookies to do this and they then feel bullied into it). She also referred to those journalists who stole photos from homes as another example of unethical journalism.

      Obviously the term “death knocks” has different connotations depending who you speak to.

      Reply

    • Bobster says:

      03:42pm | 16/02/11

      I think you’re lecturer was either going over the top or had a very narrow view of what constituted a death knock.

      You will not often be in a position where you break the news to the family before they know unless you’ve got really good sources inside the police, hospitals, etc.

      I may be wrong, but I think that did happen with Steve Irwin though. Pretty rare occurence though and you’re not going to get good quote from someone in that much shock - absolutely useless if you’re in print and don’t have a photographer handy.

    • Barney says:

      12:34pm | 15/02/11

      This is easy -  turn it off ,  60 mins will do anything to attract viewer’s and unfortunately it sometimes works , the old adage still stands up -  never underestimate the bad taste of the general public

      Reply

    • Sandy Murphy says:

      12:55pm | 15/02/11

      Rating Natings!!! Crocodile Tears please what human would not tear up watching that story it was very sad and genuine tears its called raw emotion guys !! And as a mother my heart sincerely goes out to the Keep Family, and your brave little fighters who survived, thank you 60 Minutes!!!

      Reply

    • T says:

      08:52pm | 15/02/11

      Couldn’t have said it better myself Sandy.  This family went through hell and Stacy Keep will never get over it.  She WANTED to tell her story.  The majority of people who watched 60mins to see that story are people who feel her pain and are heartbroken that her beautiful little girl was lost to the floods.  Stacy, Matt and family do not need other people on here going on about if they got paid and ratings and yada yada.. They need our love, support and donations to get their family back to some kind of normality after such an absolute tragedy.

    • Jake says:

      01:03pm | 15/02/11

      The days of 60 minutes qualifying as journalism have long passed. Journalists like George Negus, Ian Leslie, Jennifer Byrne and Jana Wendt have been replaced with ratings-hungry hacks like Liz Hayes, Liam Bartlett, Allison Langdon and Michael Usher.

      Instead of long-researched investigative reports and hard-lined questioning, the program is now more apt to air asinine puff pieces or emotionally pandering dreck like the report mentioned above.

      This program has long since nestled itself alongside A Current Affair, Today Tonight and many others in the mire of TV shows that serve no purpose other than to cynically exploit the misfortune of others to boost viewership of their respective networks and use fear and paranoia to keep us glued to our screens.

      Reply

    • c says:

      01:20pm | 15/02/11

      The reporter-as-star journalism is revolting.  This type of story leaves me feeling dirty and voyeuristic.  The story is so touching, but the poor family hasn’t even started to pull back together and find a way forward, jumping on them now is abusive.

      Reply

    • Caring for the Keep Family says:

      01:23pm | 15/02/11

      I don’t think think anyone should judge the Keep Family for telling their story so pubicly and openly.  It was their decision to make public what others may well choose to keep private.  There are also many caring people who shared in their grief by watching the story.  Many of us are doing something to help this family and others move forward from the floods by donating money, goods and giving our time to raise money in other ways.  Publicity of this kind can help to generate offers of assistance and increase donations to funds set up to help these families.  I, for one, don’t want to turn my back on them and I feel that the least I can do is listen to their story out of respect for what they have endured and as a tribute to their daughter and mothers.  We all look at things differently I guess.  The media has a role to play and of course ratings are key for them, however I believe Michael Usher was respectful and caring in the interview process (at least from what I could see in the story).  But I prefer for this story to be about the Keep Family who chose to tell their story.  I hope it has helped them and will lead to greater support for them, their community and others around Australia impacted by disasters of some kind.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      02:39pm | 15/02/11

      Bravo - finally someone with some sense - well said!! You obviously know what you are talking about

    • St. Michael says:

      08:55pm | 15/02/11

      @ unbelievable: must be nice to find that one special person on an opinion blog who shares your views, huh?

    • T says:

      08:55pm | 15/02/11

      Totally agree with unbelievable!!  Matt and Stacy we will help with your dream.

    • Miles says:

      01:27pm | 15/02/11

      What I really don’t get is why people want to experience other people’s grief in such a way.  It really is a twisted way of thinking - and the media just milk it so sickeningly.  I mean it’s one thing to feel compassion for their situation, but then to want experience step by step is something else.  What is the point?  Do we derive some sort of pleasure from feeling the pain?  If not, then what is it?  I will NEVER understand why people want to watch such ‘stories’ on tv.

      Reply

    • jimbo says:

      01:36pm | 15/02/11

      Channel Nine played there fair share of extended news breaks and made extra revenue from increased advertising. I was not suprised they didn’t televise the LEGENDS Rugby League match and my theory for them not to show what would be a huge ratings winner is the Money raised went to flood victims   so sponsors would not be giving that money to Nine.

      Reply

    • bill says:

      02:12pm | 15/02/11

      “In his blog, Usher is at pains to point out that the crew spent days with the family to make sure they were comfortable telling their story.”
      Making sure they were comfortable Tracey?  Or talking them into it? Harassing them until they caved?  And then to make her go back there..to what end, for what purpose?  For the benefit of society? I doubt it.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      02:36pm | 15/02/11

      Please credit Matt & Stacy with a bit of gumption!! Get for facts straight before you make such accusations (You too Tracey!!)

    • Euripedes says:

      02:14pm | 15/02/11

      So, you sobbed between the KFC commercial and the station promo for Top Gear. And what did that achieve for the grieving family? I suggest you look up the words ‘voyeur’ and ‘ghoul’ in your dictionary. Then take yourself down to the nearest children’s hospital, you’ll find plenty down there that’ll have you ‘tearing up’ in no time. And don’t forget your popcorn.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      02:20pm | 15/02/11

      The use of Usher in this story was a bit hit and miss. The worst was when he stood on the railway line with the grieving mum with his arm around her (not appropriate) but then he kissed her hair???? He just looked sleazy. Surely the husband should have been present for that scene so that HE could have provided the consolation to his wife. As for the tears in the promo it reminded me of that movie Broadcast News where William Hurt played a reporter who was asked to fake tears for cutaways after the interview had been shot. To be fair to Usher though, I thought the interview he did with the two kids as they explained how they stayed alive was great.

      Reply

    • Dee says:

      04:13pm | 15/02/11

      Yes ! How amazing were the two older kids .... such spunk and amazing common sense for two so young. A real credit to their parents !

    • Jade says:

      04:28pm | 15/02/11

      He really kissed her hair?! What a creep!!! :/

    • Toni says:

      02:29pm | 15/02/11

      I didn’t watch the story because I couldn’t. What mother could sit there & watch another mum pouring her heart out for the loss of a child knowing also that she’s also going to give birth to another one. Who cares if it was for ratings, if you didn’t want to watch (like me) then turn off the TV, it a choice we can all make. This family was obviously comfortable with talking about their precious daughter otherwise one can only assume they would never have agreed to the interview. We all know that the media are blood suckers but if you don’t watch to watch something then turn the bloody tv off. Everyone handles grief differently, some will clam up & not deal with it but explode later, some like to talk about it to anyone that’s willing to listen so they can get it off their chest & try to bring a sense of normality to their lives. This mother is going through a rollercoaster of emotions, dealing with a death but also celebrating a life, she’s far stronger than me & I applaud her.

      Reply

    • Unbelievable says:

      02:34pm | 15/02/11

      I just love all of your uninformed opinions & general slagging of the story - I am shocked Tracey Spicer that you would associate yourself let alone write such GARBAGE!! Did any of you stop and think that Matt & Stacy WANTED to tell their story?? TACT -  they wanted to tell their story ONCE to save having to go over and over it again every time they walked down the street. Ambush?? Michael Usher was invited into the Keep’s lives. Can’t you credit Matt & Stacy with having input into how their story was told?? Do you actually think that Matt & Stacy were FORCED to do the interview and how it was delivered? Taking advantage of the kids? Do you really think Matt & Stacy would allow this to happen?? Well they didn’t - the children’s appearance was only allowed if the children were comfortable & wanted to - and as blind freddy could see - they were. You lot have no idea and all of your comments disrespect the victims & survivors of Grantham and this special family who chose to tell their story. Well done 60 Minutes & Michael Usher!!
      As for crocodile tears if you would have bothered to watch instead of turning off & choosing to belittle this story without any facts, I challenge any of you to have watched and not cried - crocodile tears were not required by Michael Usher or anyone else!!

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      03:47pm | 15/02/11

      I don’t need to watch an excruciating public performance to be convinced it was a tragedy.  Anyone who’s got kids of their own about the little girl’s age got a wrench when they watched that media report.

      And the argument “death knocks are a nice catharsis for the family, they want to talk to us” is a gutless justification.  Remember: it’s the reporters going fishing for grief, not the public thinking they’re going to get a helpful experience from said reporter.  Michael Usher hasn’t got his number in the phone book next to the Samaritans, he was cruising for a ratings-winning story—and he got one.

      Just because you want to, god forbid, talk to someone after your youngest child dies does not thereby entitle the media to “death knocks” and then to serve the anguish up for ratings.  See family, counsellors, or a priest if you really need to talk to someone to deal with grief.  Don’t encourage the vultures.

    • Rici says:

      02:35pm | 15/02/11

      I used to like 60 MInutes, its edgy and different from the so called current affairs crap that is served on 7 & 9.  But i switched off when the story began.  firstly because what makes one families tragedy worse than anothers?are 6 Minutes going to cover each and every family that lost a loved one.  this was not about a medical condition or politics it was plain story about the loss of a child and as sad as that is for the family. I do not believe that its 60 minutes type of story . Ihope that 60 minutes return to real stories and leave this kind of stuff out.

      Reply

    • watching says:

      02:51pm | 15/02/11

      Grief for those grieving is a terrible thing, you feel like you will never recover and some don’t. Respect and dignity should be shown to all those grieving, weather it be this tragedy or one in the future. I don’t need to see this mothers grief to know how she must be feeling and it should not be put on air. Reporters should not be making mileage out of grief , either should politicians

      Reply

    • Caring for the Keep Family says:

      12:49am | 16/02/11

      Part of your respect for those grieving should extend to respecting their wishes during this process - they wanted to tell their story.  That’s all that is important here.  The media serves a crucial role in enabling their story to be shared with the world.  Politicians serve a crucial role in understanding what happened and what they need to do to rebuild.  And we also can serve a crucial role by listening and/or being supportive.  If you don’t wish to listen, that’s fine but I don’t think it is respectful to say that they shouldn’t have the opportunity to share their story in this way.

      I really don’t get why so many people on this site think this should all be hidden away, isn’t this a personal choice to make??

    • Rob says:

      03:05pm | 15/02/11

      When I saw the commercial, I saw enough. I am a parent to a 5 year old and a 2 year old, and I can imagine well enough the grief, having lost my father not long ago.

      However, I refuse to watch the story, for just this reason; its too close and personal for it to be tarnished in some cheap ratings grab.

      I absolutely feel for the family in question, and my heart goes out to them.

      RIP.

      Reply

    • Romli065 says:

      03:13pm | 15/02/11

      I watched the story but felt uncomfortable the whole time.  Possibly the family felt they needed to tell their story, probably they got paid for it and most certainly the network did it for the ratings.  It seems clear that the public wants to see these types of stories otherwise the networks wouldn’t do them if they didn’t get the ratings.  I would hope that the family got paid for their story, it’s the very least 60 Minutes could do after they lost not only their precious child and family members, but everything they ever owned in this terrible tragedy.

      Reply

    • SA says:

      04:01pm | 15/02/11

      I remember when my cousin died in a ppolice chase. The newspapers in the area were horrible! they pushed their way into my aunty’s house and started throwing all these accusations. We had only known for around 3 hrs and were still trying to get our heads around what had happened. He had absolustely no consideration for the people who loved him. He did something stupid, sure but he was someone that we loved. Eventually someone asked the guy who the hell he thought he was, and he actually listened to the person my cousin really was. However, days later another reporter did the same thing and wrote something really horrible, it was so hard for us to deal with reading all of that. Then there is also the newspaper, radio or Tv that brought up the incident again months and in some cases a yr or so later, its not like we were given warning that it was going to be on it just appeared and it hurt. Media need to be considerate of those left to deal with the loss of someone they love and not just try to sell stories, its wrong! and those who do this are just plain sick!! You can tell a story and be considerate of others and not sensationalise things to sell story. We had to live with the lies they told in the story, people think he was this horrible person but he wasnt.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      04:33pm | 15/02/11

      Well said Toni - if you don’t like it turn it off!! That is your choice as it was Matt & Stacy’s choice to do the story and have it told their way.
      How anyone can turn this respectfully shown story into “sleazy”  “voyeuristic”  “harrassing” “exploiting” “insensitive” “ratings fodder” “mercenary” “utterly appalling” “disgraceful” “opportunistic”
      “ambush” “vulchers” (vultures!) “bottom feeders” “parasites” “retch”
      “grief porn” -  your words actually reflect on your own comments and the uninformed “story” that Tracey Spicer has chosen to write.
      You have completely disrespected Matt & Stacy’s right to tell their story, cope with their grieving in their own way & their right to tell their story with whichever show/network they CHOOSE - that’s right it was their choice just as it was/could have been yours to change the channel.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      05:06pm | 15/02/11

      St Michael - as you should be aware there have been chaplains & cousellors at Gratham since it happened - they may use these services but you DO NOT get to decide and pass judgement on Matt & Stacy wanting to tell their story and how they deal with their grief!

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      08:51pm | 15/02/11

      You miss the target.  My problem is with journalists, not with grieving families.  Journalists are in it for the story, not the emotion, not the counselling opportunity.  Nothing more.  Grieving families are by definition not logical or rational people.  Journalists, like all vultures, are, and therefore have the moral choice in this scenario.

      Since you enjoy quotation marks around others’ phrases, and since you’re all about PEOPLE GRIEVING, would you like to justify for me the cynicism of the media that allows them to trivialise the grieving of a family down to a “death knock”? How much more disrespectful can you get for people’s feelings than that? How much does that tell you about the “ruhspect” the family deserves in each case?

    • grieving sister says:

      05:21pm | 15/02/11

      The news programs were the same when we lost my sister 2 years ago. They were so intrusive and forceful in their requests for interviews.
      All stations interviewed the witnesses and aired the interviews before my sisters body was even identified, the police had actuallg requested none of it be shown until ids had been done.
      they still continued to use footage many months later in the papers, imagine opening the paper one morning to a photo of the car your sister was killed in.

      Reply

    • Ben81 says:

      06:00pm | 15/02/11

      “There will always be reporters who cross the line. I remember one, from Channel 7 in Melbourne, who’d routinely steal family photos from the homes of grieving relatives.”

      OK well that annoyed me.  Is this reporter still working?

      Reply

    • MrV says:

      06:03pm | 15/02/11

      I’ve made this comment before, but it’s worth repeating. The sooner Ch9 and 7 go bust the better. They left the realms of decent ‘journalism’ a long time ago, what is left is a hollow theater to maintain ratings.

      Reply

    • Stace says:

      07:44pm | 15/02/11

      I find it just a little bit shallow that we always ask “Is it real emotion, or is it done for the ratings?” Is it not possible to be a little bit of both? Ultimately, a reporter goes out and gets a story for the ratings, and puts it on TV for the ratings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t feel some genuine emotion in the process.

      That said, I think most commercial “news” and current affairs programs are simply laughable, and are fine examples of gutter journalism.

      Reply

    • JT says:

      08:32pm | 15/02/11

      While I have every sympathy for the surviving members of this tragedy (and that’s ALL of the victims) unfortunately we now live in an age where the vast majority of people no matter what the reason, want to be on television. God knows why, these channels would not have enough money to get me on.
      I used to be a journalist but refused to bow down to narcissistic editors who had no feelings for anyone in any situation. You can have your tabloid journalism, be it in print or on screen. All they care about are ratings, money and fame for the individual reporter.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      10:51pm | 15/02/11

      My thoughts are that if giving their story allows Matt and Stacy the ability (ie the funds) to build their “house on the hill”, then I have no problem with this story being aired. I hope 60 Minutes paid them a heap though!

      As for Usher kissing her hair, I think he was trying to be “fatherly” - don’t read too much into it. That said, her husband should have been able to accompany her.

      Thoughts and prayers with this strong young family and best wishes for their future!

      Reply

    • Rhonda says:

      11:50pm | 15/02/11

      Off topic but I live in the town where a murderer who had been on the run for 15 years and was hiding out here was arrested on the weekend.
      Well, we knew something was up because we had a few carloads of southern cops turn up a few nights before and “hang out” for a few days before the arrest.
      It really was not a big deal to have a murderer in our midst - only a few people in town ever spoke to him much less knew him so nobody had ever felt threatened.
      The next day a group of us were sitting out the front of the pub when Channel 7 roared up.  They stuck a camera in our faces wanting to know how we all felt living with a murderer.
      Basically Channel 7 were told to eff off because there was absolutely no story.  Although they filmed everything in sight they didn’t put any footage on the news that night.
      Shame for Channel 7.

      Reply

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:11am | 16/02/11

      It was better than the disgusting display of pollies and their cheerleaders trashing the rights of refugees burying their loved ones and SERCo criminals trying to stop them talking to the disgusting media pack who have helped to bring us to the point where we bicker about the funding of funerals for babies while keeping their relatives in prisons.

      I found it to the be most excrutiating report I have seen in a good long while but the kids were incredible.

      And it sure put into perspective the whiners carrying on about a small levy.

      Reply

    • Lynda says:

      05:46am | 16/02/11

      1. Natural disaster happens.
      2. EVERY channel has to be there all day and all night.
      3. EVERY breakfast host has to be there all day and all night.
      4. They repeat the same thing and show the same footage all day and all night.
      5. Disaster is over, so they have to poke their noses into what is left of people’s possessions.  Repeat over and over.
      6. Go to video shop and check out videos to last a few days.

      Reply

    • Wendy says:

      12:51am | 17/02/11

      Disaster over, you have got to be joking,!!!, I am sure the thousands of people still without power, water,and no homes or not a damn thing to their name would disagree with you, this is their life !!!!  Its not over, and wont be for a long time, the ignorance of this ongoing plight of Queensland astounds me,the media need to show people what is happening, because we cannot forget these people who are going through the worst time of their lives.

    • Paul c says:

      07:56am | 16/02/11

      For once I agree, the family must of wanted to talk to the media otherwise the story would never have been shot in the first place. I can’t imagine even 60 minutes forcing this family to front the cameras. I didn’t watch the story, but I’m sure that michael ushers tears were not crocodile tears as the whole situation is a tragic one that would touch anyone-even a hardened reporter. I would think that the families whole motive was to prevent this from happening to anyone else. My only hope its that chanel nine made a hefty donation to the playground fund - since they do in the end make money out of these stories.

      Reply

    • mark riley says:

      08:14am | 16/02/11

      Are these emotions real? Who knows what Usher has done off camera. Personally, i think a lot of these things are fluff pieces and best left to pseudo jouranlists like Grimshaw, Rowe, Mel and Kochie

      Reply

    • Tracy Lindley says:

      08:54am | 16/02/11

      Perhaps Mark Riley you should visit the area to see first hand not even “fluff” survived this tragic event. How dare you suggest any of the emotions were not real…...I challenge you to find anyone with a heart that could have not been touched in that way.

    • Tracy Lindley says:

      08:50am | 16/02/11

      Well said Ted

    • Tracy Lindley says:

      08:36am | 16/02/11

      Talk about sensationalism.. why platser an old media photo of Jessica at the start of your comments…. probably because you haven’t met the family to get a more recent one. Had you been in contact with Matt and Stacy or the extended family, as I have, you would know that they wanted the story told. You would know that the extended famlily were also part of the production even if not seen on camera. As heartbreaking as it was for us to view, it is what occured, it is their way of telling their story once to so many that wanted to help. It was the vehicle to get people talking about the tragedy and getting answers to the “why”. Why did the media broadcast evacuations of Grantham were taking place before Grantham even knew the wall of water was coming being one such question. I for one had never heard of Grantham before Jan10, and since then have been working day and night from NSW supporting that community with a group of over 550 people who care. I personally visited Grantham last week and went to Matt and Stacys home with their extended family and we spoke of how for the family, it has been so painful to share stories with each other in fear of feeling more pain. This was a way of the story being told once. SInce this time the support for the Lockyer Valley Community has been overwhelming, as people have a greater undrstanding of a little of what families have endured. Given I can not find one negative comment on here that comes from anyone involved with the community, perhaps this can be laid to rest.

      Reply

    • Flipper says:

      08:41am | 16/02/11

      I don’t have an opinion on whether the Keeps did the right or wrong thing, they are experiencing the worst moment of their lives and may or may not regret the decision down the track. However, there is no excuse for the rubbish journalism surrounding it. I didn’t watch it, I don’t need to, my sincerest condolences to any family that has lost someone, but I don’t wish to see or share in their grief. If this is what 60 minutes calls entertainment, then I won’t be watching it. Disgusting.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      09:19am | 16/02/11

      St Michael if your point that I have missed is your stand on journalists then this is not the thread for you. This is about criticism of a tv show that was ASKED to tell the story by the family itself. This is about how Tracy Spicer and others have trivialised Matt & Stacy wanting to tell their story - this was NOT a death -knock (I don’t like the sound of this either) - this was a request from the Keeps who had input and I can assure were not forced to do anything as some of the ugly comments portray. So your point is valid but not on this thread which is about a story that is being denigrated by Spicer & the public. I just hope Matt & Stacy don’t read all of this nastiness.
      PS my quotation marks were to show how the story of this families survival and loss (again which they requested) had been tarnished with such ugly words and judgement.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      02:37pm | 16/02/11

      You miss the target again.  The story isn’t being denigrated.  Nobody denies it was a tragedy.  It’s the way it was handled by the ratings vultures of Channel 9.  It is also the fact the story was run.  Whether it was that the Keeps succumbed to one of the grief vultures pestering them or whether they sought out one grief vulture in particular in the hope it would make the others go away makes no difference to the whole dirty encounter.

      Please go back and actually read the originating article before machine-gunning the straw man.

    • Ted Mulder says:

      04:14pm | 16/02/11

      No St Michael, you entirely miss the point. Did you even bother to read Usher’s response to Spicer’s article? If there are vultures about it sure has to be Spicer who has used this tragic event to get her own name and opinions out there, as well as those people who have commented here in agreement with her. None of you, including you, have not one iota of credibility with your sanctimonious media bashing attempt. There was nothing wrong with the delicate way Usher and Jo Townsend have handled the story. If there is anything wrong at all it’s your paranoid interpretation you have chosen to adopt. Do us all a favour, read Usher’s response (there’s a link to it posted by me above) and then have the integrity to publish a full apology to Usher and Channel Nine for the blatant claptrap you have posted here.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:25pm | 17/02/11

      @ Ted Mulder: I did read Mushy’s response, and given its own lack of integrity and limp-wristed defence of Mushy being a vulture for hire rather than on the prowl, I’ve got nothing to apologise for.

      Silly ad hominem attacks don’t make you or your manhood look any bigger, you know.

    • Karo says:

      10:00am | 16/02/11

      How dare anybody presume that a family’s grief should not be shown, if this is what the Keeps wanted? Their family asked for the interview, it has helped them.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      04:00pm | 16/02/11

      I aggree Karo! St Michael I haven’t missed any point -  you hate the media and how they behave - got that lound and clear. You seem to miss the vital point that Matt & Stacy chose to tell their story to the show they wanted to and had a lot of input into how it was shown. They were not forced to do anything by anyone. Tracey Spicer is guilty of what she is accusing 60 minutes of - that is the disgusting issue here and my point was that to use any of those disgusting terms ”  ” is to denigrate this family’s story (grief porn OMG!) - all I am asking is that people respect Matt & Stacy’s choice and by all means media bash but not on this thread.

    • Yvonne Jones says:

      12:06pm | 16/02/11

      If the Reporters from different Mediums want to have a shot at each other, and requote each others comments, out of context, then you should do it in a Private Conversation. There is NO need to drag a Grieving Family into your Side Show and to comment on the responses of a Man who is trying to get help to a Family and a Community that have now basically been Forgotten, because the Media are Weather Chasing and have now, all but lost interest in the aftermath caused by Greed for Profit of the Water Provider.
      I am Disappointed in you Tracey, You need to get your feet Wet to really know whats going on… I am looking for Volunteers this weekend to clean up after the flooding,  so I will see you on the ground then Tracey,???? So that you can report the truth as you see it.  BYO Shovel and Gum Boots, I will send you the info in a PM.. Guttermonger Journalism, Really !!!.

      Reply

    • Nury says:

      01:45pm | 16/02/11

      I am a resident of Grantham and have experienced the town going through a deep period of mourning and the plethora of emotions that go with a disaster situation. I appreciate the diversity of the points raised in this thread as I sometimes cannot see ‘both sides of the argument’. I know that the Keep familys desire was to raise funds for the community and also to prevent something of this magnitude from ever reoccuring through early warning systems. I guess the main point I would like to raise is that Grantham won’t be in the media spotlight next week and it will be forgotten. As you drive through town nearly 5 weeks after the disaster it still looks like a complete disaster. The main businesses in town - the pub, the shop, petrol station, trucking company and farmer that employed a majority of the residents are now out of businesses. Insurance is not paying up for business or individuals. There are still people that are homeless, living in challenging situations with emotional trauma and little hope for the future. We see this everyday.
      I wish there could be more good stories in the media about the wonderfully generous volunteers that are doing some incredible things behind the scenes but unfortunately they are not sensational media stories. They are just regular people doing charitable deeds.
      So from a perspective of someone trying to help raise awareness and funds for the community we have to settle for what we can get in the media - the good and bad.

      Reply

    • Wendy Ashdown says:

      04:47pm | 20/02/11

      Thank you Nury, these ignorant, opinionated people have no idea what is really happening in so many flood effected areas. I am one of those volunteers who have seen firsthand what is happening in many areas of Qld, and if all the critics have nothing better to do than slag of the media, come and help anytime, we will be there for many many months yet. If any families choose to let the media in its their choice, if you don"t like it , TOUGH!!!!,its not about you or your opinions.Get out and help, you might learn what the reality of the the aftermath is really like.These poor people really don’t give a toss about your opinions , they just want to try and recover.If you want to help with your politics start lobbying the people that are wrongly giving out handouts to people that were barely effected by the floods, whilst many that deserve it are not seeing a red cent.

    • Ginnie Carroll -Wilson says:

      09:53am | 21/02/11

      Well said Nury and I so agree.As media dies down people just carry on with their normal lives as though nothing ever happened. And yet they have no idea of what the people of Grantham and the Lockyer valley are still and will be going through to rebuild their lives. Thats why I keep reposting items and adding to my profile and sharing..so people dont forget… and to help them be aware of the trials all are still facing.You and the community are an amazing tower of strength and it was a privilege to meet you.Thinking of you all often,Take care,Ginnie grin

    • Nury says:

      04:20pm | 16/02/11

      Thank you Yvonne, this is a way of contributing directly to the community. 100% of all the funds will go back to help with the long term rebuild of Grantham. Really appreciate the support.

    • Lord Lucan says:

      04:13pm | 16/02/11

      I switched channels - i don’t need this sort of thing while eating my dinner!

      Reply

    • Tracy Lindley says:

      06:58am | 17/02/11

      Lord Lucan on behalf of the peopl of Grantham I would like to apologise for interrupting your meal. Guess you could be grateful you had a kitchen to eat out of, a fridge to keep your food cold, food to actually cook, a room to watch TV in, a TV, electricity….... oh and lets not forget actually alive to watch it.

      Hope you enjoyed your meal !!!!

    • Wendy Ashdown says:

      04:53pm | 20/02/11

      Well said Tracey, what ignorant people we have in Australia. I invite them all to spend just one day in your shoes , they would be grateful for any media coverage that shows the reality of your everyday life.The volunteers and everyday people will continue to support you and others for the long haul.

      Reply

    • Tracy Lindley says:

      09:49pm | 24/02/11

      Thanks Wendy. I am not actually a resident , just someone who has become very close to many of them whilst doing a support project for them and will continue to do so for a long time. Cheers.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 12:16PM

RT @avgaunz: @drpiotrowski @ThePunchHQ really interesting article! Although we offer email and phone support, we still receive the odd letter too...

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 12:16PM

This is so clever. Lunch bags that look like they have mould on them to stop co-workers stealing your sandwich http://t.co/v7iMSkRh

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 12:09PM

This'll be good. Makers of the f@*^ing scariest Australian movie of all time to talk how they made it http://t.co/P9c4wzvL#snowtown#film

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 17 May 12 11:44AM

One must absolutely read this as soon as is snootily possible (it's about the mad family sueing Geelong Grammar) http://t.co/YnWgqcfi

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

by Anthony Sharwood

44

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

by Richard Marles

67

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

by Tory Maguire

87

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

It’s usually best to avoid putting too many statistics in a post but reading the ACTU’s report…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The greatest ending to a football season ever?

Dave B says:

Congratulations & well deserved win! I've been a Utd supporter from 7 years of age, even stuck with them when they went down to the 2nd Div. However, despite the X-town rivalry & even as a devout MU fan, I can say that I truly admired the determination, courage & skill shown by the Blues - What a spectacle,… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed