TEMPLE: New tech raises taste questions

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 12, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.
Updated September 12, 2008 at 11:53 p.m.

Text size

Photo by Brian Lehmann / The Rocky

Lydia Wilson, 5, touches a teddy bear at a memorial for Marten Kudlis, 3, who was killed last week at an ice cream shop. The Rocky sent live updates from the boy's funeral on Wednesday, raising criticism from some readers and media.

More News Columns & Blogs

Comments

September 13, 2008

7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

A high-tech vulture is still a vulture. The sob-sister mentality that seems to control the News does no credit to the profession of journalism. There are "real" stories to cover. A funeral is not one of them.

You're not giving us "news" when you tell us that someone grieves for a lost child...we sorta figured that. A blow-by-blow description of a funeral, whispered into a phone (to use your description) is plainly ghoulish..."The father just handed his wife a clean handkerchief, folks. It's a tasteful red and blue check pattern and seems to be made of cotton, although I can't be sure..." and maybe just a tad voyeuristic.

Dismount your pompous high horse, Mr. Temple, and look at this issue from ground level: It's a funeral, not "news".
September 13, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

newsaddict writes:

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. What's next, live online video from casketcam?
September 13, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Seamus writes:

You have no excuse, Temple. None. Stop trying to defend The Rocky's absurd action.
September 13, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cheyne writes:

This wasn't a train collision or a political convention. This was a 3-year-old boy's funeral. If your defense is that you failed not in concept, but in the "execution," then the onus is on you to detail what would be considered a tasteful way to Twitter a child's burial.

I think it's great that you're experimenting with new ways to communicate with your readers, but shouldn't the tinkering be confined to more appropriate venues?

And to insinuate that this is some sort of First Amendment issue, well, that's just silly.
September 13, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

edwardallen writes:

You didn't directly address -- and should have -- the flat and dull product of this coverage. There was no flair to the coverage, and I do not know if this was deliberate, or a result of the constraints of this technology. Tweeting a funeral strikes me a little odd, but only because that is normally used for social activities. TV can provide live coverage as they did with President Reagan's funeral, so there is not an issue using machines to transmit news as far as I am concerned. But I got nothing out of reading this coverage because it was so bland.
September 13, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

JasonVaritek writes:

There are three issues: 1) The idea of twittering news events in general, which is not necessary a bad idea. 2) The idea of twittering a 3-year-old's funeral, which is a bad idea. 3) The execution of twittering a 3-year-old's funeral, which should be moot if you consider issue No. 2 with journalistic sanity. In this column, Mr. Temple subtly blames the reporter for what is clearly a bad idea by writing that it was the execution, not the idea. I expect the Rocky to prove this soon by twittering the next 3-year-old's funeral and showing readers how it is done tastefully. But they won't -- because they know they erred the first time.
September 13, 2008

5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

How about the other outrage; The proper description to use is ILLEGAL ALIEN when describing the perpetrator of all this misery.
" Undocumented immigrant " and " illegal immigrant " are just some names invented for the style sheet created by the AP. Why not face REALITY and use the PROPER, LEGAL description for this person? That just might stop the outrage and sugarcoating of this hard FACT that M$M keeps ignoring ( that may also explain why there has been a decline in readership numbers ).

I won't even go into the FACT that we are faced with a COVERT INVASION of our country.
September 13, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

I'm critical of John Temple. He doesn't insist on professionalism from his political writers. It angers me. But I'm giving him a break here. This was a tough situation. The papers are struggling to remain relevant. No one can be perfect in their job or profession. I'm willing to take John at his word and thank him. Class is really hard to find these days.
September 13, 2008

11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

RakeshAgrawal writes:

I'm glad to hear that the boy's family was asked if the funeral could be covered and that they consented.

Was the boy's family offended or upset by the coverage? Seems that should be the most important thing here.

Also, this post seems like a good move, but why not reproduce the actual twitter stream here or at least link to it so that can be a part of the discussion? Not doing this makes it seem like you're trying to hide something.
September 13, 2008

11:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

RakeshAgrawal writes:

OK, here are the twits from Berny Morson's twitter stream (http://twitter.com/RMN_Berny). My opinion is that unless the family objected to it, this wasn't in bad taste. People just aren't used to this. Anyways, the twitter stream:

family members shovel earth into grave 3 days ago from txt

rabbi calls end to ceremony 12:28 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi chanting final prayer in hebrew 12:27 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

earth being placed on coffin. 12:22 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi recites the main hebrew prayer of death 12:20 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi zucker praying 12:18 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

coffin lowered into ground 12:18 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

people gathering at graveside 12:14 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

procession begins 12:01 PM September 10, 2008 from txt

cars queueing up to follow hearse 11:59 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

pallbearers carry out coffin followed by mourners. 11:48 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

people again are sobbing. rabbi again asks god to give marten everlasting life. 11:46 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

video shows marten blowing out candles on birthday cake, marten with dog. last images are of headlines. 11:44 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

video of marten is projected on screen. 11:32 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi says marten is close to god now. 11:31 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi says marten loved to be tickled. calls the death a nightmare. no words can sooth us, he says. 11:28 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

family member says marten is with grandmother who died last year. ' marten we loved you,' he says. People sobbing. 11:22 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

family member remembers marten. 11:20 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi says we will always remember marten and he will live in our memory. 11:18 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

rabbi recites 23rd psalm. 11:16 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

family members shovel earth into grave 3 days ago from txt

rabbi asks god to be with family. says god is near. speaks scripture in hebrew. 11:15 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

service beginning with rabbi david zucker speaking. 11:12 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

the father is sobbing over the casket. 'I loved him,' he says. others are sobbing. 11:11 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

chapel almost full. some people sitting on folding chairs. pictures of marten projected on screen above coffin. more people sobbing. 11:04 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

some people are crying. a few are sobbing. 10:58 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

people are viewing the body, which is lying in casket with teddy bear. some people falling on knees to pray a 10:57 AM September 10, 2008 from txt

fairmount cemetary - - chapel filling for funeral of marten kudlis. 10:55 AM September 10, 2008 from txt
September 14, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

My verdict:

Bad taste all the way around. Respect the dead.

Makes me evaluate why we CRAY-ons helped with building the World Wide Web in the first place. We should have left it as DARPANET...8-/...

But we believed in Freedom of Speech, too..
September 14, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

mattie writes:

I'm trying to decide if you honestly have as little journalistic judgement and common sense as this column would indicate. Whether it's on Twitter or not, a live, quick, bullet-point style, play-by-play approach is insanely inappropriate for a child's funeral. It has NOTHING to do with technology and EVERYTHING to do with how you and your paper chose to approach a sensitive, emotional, personal story. So, yes, just for the record (since you astonishingly still seem not to get it), the 'idea' was idiotic from the start, and no manner of 'execution' would have rescued it. The reporter wasn't covering a basketball game, or some breaking situation where quick updates might have been necessary for the public. There really wasn't anything of value in the Twitter stream (Wow, you mean people cry, pray, and talk at funerals? And dig graves? Get this paper a Pulitzer for their GROUNDBREAKING reporting!). And the entire approach was wrong-headed and disrespectful. Quit trying to defend it and get yourselves right so your paper doesn't make such stupid mistakes going forward.
September 14, 2008

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

labutard writes:

Temple, you are an idiot. As someone who worked for you for years, I always knew this. But, this rises to a new level of insensitivity and stupidity-- even for you. The very insult of him sitting there keying out those twitters during a funeral is so obvious. Imagine if you were the parent -- say it was Hannah when she was 3 -- and some jerk was sitting out there "twittering." What does that have to do with First Amendment or right to know? Don't you see the invasion? It is absurd for you to even try to defend that. Again, you are an idiot. Always were, always will be.
September 14, 2008

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

metaprinter writes:

The problem is that this was not a “road closing”. It wasn’t a presidential debate. It wasn’t done for the sake of the family.

Most importantly, The Rocky Mountain News should learn how to use Twitter before unleashing it at a kid’s funeral. You don’t have to be a newspaper editor to know that.

John, I've always thought that the purpose of a newspaper is to promote self-actualization by providing readers with quality information. Readers use that information to make better decisions on a wide range of topics, from which road to travel on (road closings), to which candidate to vote for. When readers find these interactions favorable over a period of time, then a relationship is cultivated and readers come to view your paper as a reliable source for news, information, guidance, entertainment, and advertising.
September 15, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michel writes:

No, Temple; you're missing the point entirely.
The Twitter report was obscene because it's such a silly news delivery system. It's hip, it's jazzy, and, in this case, it was grossly maudlin.
You say that, " ... I would have been interested in hearing what was happening during the funeral. Who was there. How many people. Anything special about the way the service was handled. ... "
My personal favorite entry was "family members shovel earth into grave."
Really? Was that one of those unique details about the service?
September 15, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

Michel,
Another unique detail caught by our sharp-eyed newshound was this Pulitzer contender: "...some people are crying. a few are sobbing..." A nice distinction, don't you think, characteristic of the depth and sensitivity we've come to expect of our cute little fun-sized tabloid.

Temple's column serves to illustrate the severity of the News' cranio-rectal occlusion. His attempts to justify, alibi, pass the buck, and build a straw man of censorship, demonstrate how far out of touch he and his organization must be.

This is Comment Number 16 to Temple's column. This is also Negative Comment Number 16.

Whither goeth the news racket? "Jeepers, Chief, it looks like people aren't as sick as we hoped!"
September 16, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

billymax writes:

This boy's death was a very public one. He was killed after two vehicles crashed into an ice cream store he was in. And whether or not it was talked about in the news, it was going to be talked about.

As a result, a lot of people who didn't know him or know the family felt connected and sympathized. They felt as if their own little brother or son or nephew had died. A funeral is a form of closure for people in mourning and so the value of Twittering the funeral is in that. A lot more people wanted to mourn for this boy than could attend the funeral. By using Twitter to broadcast it, people could pray along with the family, follow what was going on, and get that closure for the death of a child a lot of people felt connected to.

The other thing we can't forget is that the family allowed the reporter in. The reporter would not have gone in without the family's ok. And so the idea that this was any sort of "invasion" of privacy is ridiculous. Once a reporter is invited in, any expectation of privacy is gone.

We need to keep the debate between the VALUE of Twittering a funeral and the debate over how well the Twittering was executed separate. No, I don't think it was well-executed, and as Mr. Temple says, that's his fault as an editor for not training his reporter. But there is absolutely a value in it and once reporters and editors know how to properly harness the power of technology like Twitter, it will become much more apparent.
September 16, 2008

7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

billymax,
Are you a News employee, or just a free-lance apologist?
It is cynical in the extreme to pander to people who, as you so quaintly put it "...felt as if their own little brother or son or nephew had died...". To claim that the News is providing "...closure for the death of a child a lot of people felt connected to," is just more of the same sob-sister nonsense, nothing more.

If it weren't so grotesque, the image of the folks at home gathered around the laptop to "...pray along with the family..." would be "Addams Family" hilarious. To bad it isn't a joke.

It's a funeral. It's not an Event.

As my wife so pithily expressed it, "Ick".
September 17, 2008

12:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

billymax writes:

I'm neither, SteveA. I am simply someone who recognizes that traditional ideas of ethics and privacy failed to take into account technology when they were formed. Those who created the ideas could never have imagined things like Twitter or instant messengers or even the Internet. But they're here to stay and we are the ones who have to adapt our thinking to account for them.

Like it or not, the boy's death was very public. It's the same as a plane crash or a freeway pileup. At that point the funeral does become an event because it's another piece of a very public saga.

The idea of making a funeral available to the masses via the Internet is nothing new. Some funeral homes for a few years now have been offering webcasts of funerals. Point your browser at a website and you're watching the funeral. At the same time, you can sign a guestbook with a condolence message to the family. Ultimately, this is the same thing, simply without the images and condensed into 140-character clips.

And because it is essentially the same thing as streaming a funeral on the Web, Twittering a funeral has the same value. It brings the funeral to those who cannot be there - be they friends or family in other states/countries or simply well-wishers who read about this child's horrible, untimely death and want to mourn along with the family.

The problem I have with your argument, SteveA, is that you seem to be trying to say that because you don't have any interest in following a funeral via Twitter, nobody else should either. But you don't get to make that decision. Nobody is forcing you to join Twitter, follow the Rocky Mountain News via Twitter, or read about any funerals that Rocky Mountain News reporters happen to report on via Twitter. But you don't get to make those choices for others.
September 17, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

This was about as newsworthy as twittering what takes place in Littwin's brain: both are events you don't really need to know about. We know what takes place at funerals. We know there is no thought in Littwin. Why waste a reporter's time reporting on either?
September 17, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

I think you’ve got the cart before the horse, billymax.

“But they're [Twitter, IM, etc] here to stay and we are the ones who have to adapt our thinking to account for them.”

I disagree that my thinking must adapt. Standards don’t change because of methodology – “Internet Porn” is still porn. Should my attitude toward pornography change?

I think that the people who employ new technology must adapt their use of that technology to “traditional ideas of ethics and privacy”.

“Nobody is forcing you to join Twitter, follow the Rocky Mountain News via Twitter, or read about any funerals that Rocky Mountain News reporters happen to report on via Twitter. But you don't get to make those choices for others.”

For that rather condescending argument to be valid, one would also need to apply it to pornography. Your point of view says that pornography should be available to anyone and it’s up to the beholder whether or not to behold.

Before you get started on legalities, pornography is just one subject that’s been changed by technology. How’s about let’s Twitter executions, autopsies, or anything else.

To remind me that I don’t have to read a Twitter stream not only belabors the obvious, it trivializes this entire thread. To claim that I’m telling somebody else that they can’t Twitter tells me that you either missed the whole point of this thread or that you’ve run out of argument.

As newsaddict said way up at the top of this thread: “Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.”
September 18, 2008

1:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

billymax writes:

First of all, SteveA, I want to thank you. And I'm not being snarky. I am really enjoying this back and forth. So thanks for that.

With that little bit of sap over with, I can get back to the debate. Maybe when I said that our thinking must change I wasn't articulating what I really wanted to say. It's not that I expect you to change your standards. However, you cannot deny, especially after this little debate with me, that there are people out there whose standards when it comes to Twittering a funeral are different than yours. So why deny them? I would ask the same about pornography. Ok, you don't like it. But there are people that do. So would you suggest that because your standards don't allow you to enjoy pornography that others shouldn't as well?

Here's the big question: How has the Rocky Mountain News' use of Twitter to broadcast a funeral harmed you? In fact, how has it harmed anyone? The family obviously didn't seem to mind and they're the only ones who could possibly have been harmed in any way by it. You were certainly not harmed by it. If you had been forced to follow the funeral, then you could say you were. But you were not. In fact, none of the people on this board who are against Twittering the funeral were.

To address your point about Twittering executions or autopsies, I simply say this: Why not? An execution is a very real part of our justice system. So is an autopsy. And part of what makes our justice system work is that it is open and anyone who wants can view it in action. And those who don't want to view it in action don't have to.

We're arguing about taste here, SteveA. Your taste does not allow you to see a value in Twittering a funeral. Fine. But you must accept that others' tastes differ from yours. And so the reason I trivialize the entire comment stream by reminding you that you don't have to read the Twitters is because this is a fairly trivial argument. Arguing about tastes and standards is ridiculous because no two people have exactly the same tastes and standards and so in an argument like this, we will never find common ground.

However, as I said before, I do enjoy this back and forth. So please keep it coming. I enjoy your eloquent and interesting responses to mine. Too many comment streams like this devolve into name-calling and though you did some of that in your first response to me (I believe the term you used was "free-lance apologist"), you haven't since and I'm grateful. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, we really should have this discussion over a beer or two.
September 18, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

billymax,
Thanks for the "thanks". I've been enjoying this too, and I agree with everything you said about this discussion. I also agree that we're discussing taste, mine and yours in particular, and I can't deny the existence of differing yet valid opinions.

My point of view on the News' funeral coverage is based on how I feel about "news" coverage in general. In my opinion, too much space is devoted to articles that are not news. I am offended by "reporters" "reporting" on someone's grief. I just don't see how that can be considered newsworthy. Citizens dancing in the streets following the death of an Evil Dictator comes closer to being "news". (Television reporting is every bit as bad, if not worse, featuring action video of people consumed by their emotions.)

For an organization that often presents itself as heroic and noble in purpose to churn out this oh-so-aptly-named Twitter, seems kind of sad. The News occasionally offers first-rate newspapering, such as its series "Deadly Denial", and its excellent coverage of the Tim Masters case.

If mortuaries want to stream services and offer on-line guest books, fine. Mortuaries are in that business. Newspapers are not.

My opinion. My taste.
September 18, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

billymax writes:

I guess the difference is in how we feel about news. As I've said, because the boy died in a very public way, his death - and all that follows it - becomes a public thing. I hate to put it this way, but dying so publicly made the boy a public figure of sorts. I almost feel dirty saying that, but it's the way news works.

You're totally right in that newspapers of late have been devoting way too much space to fluff. That said, this was not fluff, I don't think. At worst, it was a failed experiment, because it was definitely not executed well.

Newspapers, for good or for bad, ARE having to get into the business of that kind of quick news reporting that includes things like Twittering a funeral. They never would have done it had they thought it wouldn't interest people. Think about this: This column, its comment stream, and the original story were not only seen by readers of the Rocky Mountain News. I read about it in an email from the Poynter Institute. So ultimately, Twittering the funeral did exactly what it was supposed to: That is, it sold papers, brought more viewers to the Web site, and made people outside of its normal coverage area talk about it.

First round's on me, by the way.
September 19, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

Thanks, billy,
Your post just above is a well-written summary of what we've been batting around for almost a week now. The last paragraph pretty much nails it. Maybe Mr. Temple will have something to say tomorrow.

Second round's mine, my friend.
September 20, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

billymax writes:

Sounds good to me, Steve.

Newspapers are struggling to remain relevant. Ultimately they will, but right now is a transition period for them. Old-school newsfolks are on their way out. New kids fresh out of school are starting to make their way in. And they're the ones who want to try things like Twittering funerals.

I think what needs to happen is that the folks in charge of newspapers need to realize the print product can never compete with radio, the Web, and TV in terms of breaking news. People just don't go to newspapers for it. What we're starting to see and will see much more of is the print product becoming the place to go for analysis and in-depth "What-does-this-mean" reporting.

At the same time, we'll see newspaper Web sites doing more of this sort of thing and trying more experiments like Twittering a funeral. And once more of those are done, they will start to get better. As I've said all along, I think it's possible to "properly" Twitter a funeral - that is to do it in such a way that it's relevant and interesting to a large number of people. The RMN didn't do that this time. But the editors will learn from it - and the next Twitter experiment (whether or not it's a funeral) will be better.
September 20, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevea writes:

I hope you're right, billymax, about the News' editors learning.

I decided earlier today that the News needs to call its streaming (or maybe blog-type effort) "Wuxtry!" or "Readallaboudit!"
September 21, 2008

1:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

billymax writes:

I'm pretty confident that I'm right, honestly. I'm seeing it all over the place - including at the paper where I'm a reporter (not the RMN). Old-school editors aren't sure how to respond to this technology. Newer (or simply more open-minded) editors are the ones really leading the charge.

It's not only a problem of simply learning how to use technology most effectively. It's changing a whole mindset. Old-school newspaper honchos still want to rely on that high and mighty idea that the NEWSPAPER (read: print newspaper) is the be-all and end-all of news aggregation. They still think that the old notion of newspapers being the most reliable source of information will sell papers and bring readers.

Wrong. For the record, I'm a firm believer that newspapers ARE in fact the most reliable sources of news out there. But that's not enough. And that's the problem. Old-school newsfolks want to think it's enough. And they're being forced out of jobs because they aren't altering their thinking about news and its presentation.

The problem is that old-school folks still think of the print product and the non-print product(s) as two separate things, when in reality, they need to think of the print and non-print sides as two parts of a whole. Papers need to learn to use the print product to get people to the non-print product by saying things like "Get all your updates on this story overnight at www.insertnameofpaper'swebsitehere.com" in the paper. By that same token, the Web site needs to be used to direct people back to the print.

And so it's not simply a matter of learning how to properly use Twitter or how to eloquently live-blog something. It's a matter of learning how to use every resource available to get readers the information they want when they want it (and when they want it is usually now). Those newsfolks that are doing that are the ones with jobs. The others have either been forced out or will be soon enough.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › News › News Columns & Blogs

TEMPLE: New tech raises taste questions

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 12, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.Updated September 12, 2008 at 11:53 p.m.

More News Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links

Published September 12, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.
Updated September 12, 2008 at 11:53 p.m.