Back when I was in Minneapolis for the holidays, I read something in The Star Tribune that kinda bugged me. Here's the quote, from Ambition, schemes proved a criminal mix on January 1, 2010:
"Scott LaFavre could not be reached for comment. His wife, Shari, did not respond to a message left on her Facebook page."
WTF? I'm so torn. Yes, Facebook is sometimes the easiest way to reach someone for whom you don't have an e-mail address, but I always feel sheepish when using it that way. I can't believe that this journalist copped to using it for professional means when it didn't even work! He could have said just what he said about Scott, that "His wife, Shari, could not be reached for comment." Instead, it sounds all personal and whiny, like "She wouldn't even friend me! GEEZ!"
Clearly, this bugged someone at The Star Tribune, too, because I had to pull that from a cached page. Now, it reads:
"A message to be delivered to LaFavre last month has not been answered. His attorney, Janet Newberg, declined to discuss his case."
... Which leads me, contrarian that I am, to consider the opposite side of this. They couldn't find any contact information for his wife, so maybe, in theory (I'm talking about the principle here, not this particular case where I think the very mention of using Facebook as a journalistic tool is petty and ishy), the public would want to know that all routes of communication were attempted. Let's say it were Al Capone. Would you want to know that Al Capone refused to be contacted through Facebook or Twitter? Or that he changed his MySpace song to "On the Run" (anachronism intended, just picture Capone rocking out to Pink Floyd while watching The Wizard of Oz ... awesome)?
With the exception of the latter (I think noting what someone's MySpace song is is actually good journalism -- at least it's interesting), I'm still at a "no" for this. "Could not be reached for comment" would have sufficed. You wouldn't expect a reporter to ingratiate him or herself by saying something like "Could not be reached by phone, e-mail, telegram, singing telegram, wire tap, or beating on the door with a gavel." Mentioning Facebook is just embarrassing.
"Scott LaFavre could not be reached for comment. His wife, Shari, did not respond to a message left on her Facebook page."
WTF? I'm so torn. Yes, Facebook is sometimes the easiest way to reach someone for whom you don't have an e-mail address, but I always feel sheepish when using it that way. I can't believe that this journalist copped to using it for professional means when it didn't even work! He could have said just what he said about Scott, that "His wife, Shari, could not be reached for comment." Instead, it sounds all personal and whiny, like "She wouldn't even friend me! GEEZ!"
Clearly, this bugged someone at The Star Tribune, too, because I had to pull that from a cached page. Now, it reads:
"A message to be delivered to LaFavre last month has not been answered. His attorney, Janet Newberg, declined to discuss his case."
... Which leads me, contrarian that I am, to consider the opposite side of this. They couldn't find any contact information for his wife, so maybe, in theory (I'm talking about the principle here, not this particular case where I think the very mention of using Facebook as a journalistic tool is petty and ishy), the public would want to know that all routes of communication were attempted. Let's say it were Al Capone. Would you want to know that Al Capone refused to be contacted through Facebook or Twitter? Or that he changed his MySpace song to "On the Run" (anachronism intended, just picture Capone rocking out to Pink Floyd while watching The Wizard of Oz ... awesome)?
With the exception of the latter (I think noting what someone's MySpace song is is actually good journalism -- at least it's interesting), I'm still at a "no" for this. "Could not be reached for comment" would have sufficed. You wouldn't expect a reporter to ingratiate him or herself by saying something like "Could not be reached by phone, e-mail, telegram, singing telegram, wire tap, or beating on the door with a gavel." Mentioning Facebook is just embarrassing.
Posts
2 comments:
I see where you're coming from, this desire to cite Facebook or Twitter at every opportunity, even to the extent of publishing non-story or non-fact to do so.
I can see a relevance to it in this context because one can assume Facebook to be something the other person would be visiting all the time, so a non-response seems more deliberate.
But coming round full-circle, I don't think it looks good to show how desperate a journo someone is to try to get a comment, "I sat on the doorstep until 2am and nobody spoke to me. What a loser I am."
agreed. fb should be left out of journalism. pink floyd however, should always reign supreme.
Post a Comment
Tell me things.