In this edition, we look at the dreaded "death knock," the solemn journalistic task of approaching a grieving family for photos and comments about loved ones lost to tragedy. Also touched on is the debate about publishing fatal collision photos. An interview with Dave Dale, a Local Journalism Initiative reporter with three decades of experience, pulls back the curtain a bit on how these things can go, the cumulative impact on reporters, and how social media is making it a bit easier.
You will find below the full episode transcript plus the embedded audio file.
---
You’ve been a reporter for a long time at various publications in several different towns, Dave, what triggers the ‘death knock’ assignment?
Dave: It could be a death of any sort, really just any tragedy. Usually, it's a news story because of how it happened or to who it happened to and nobody likes them. It's certainly nothing to look forward to, but in the past, especially with not having the electronic means to communicate, you called or you had to show up at someone's front door. And as they're dealing with the news of a tragedy, you wanted to make contact, do interviews and get a photo.
So we call it a death knock and it can go one of two ways: It can go very badly or it can go really well. And I've had both experiences where you're greeted at the door as somebody that is going to help the family. They're there. They're glad to see you, they might know you, they might know and respect the publication you're with and they invite you in.
I've had that happen where I'm basically at the kitchen table with people that are going through photos of a loved one that has passed and they're already planning to have the funeral. So there are friends and family over and might be students that are friends with the young person that had passed on or whatnot. So they're right in the midst of it.
And then you basically join the family in the exercise of mourning for the loss.
And then I've had people pretty well slam a door in my face.
It can go either way. I've never really liked them.
One of the reasons why I left the Nugget is I have had enough of it. There was a tragedy down the highway from here where the young man that I knew through sports with my kid growing up. He was somebody that was once on a team with him and then played against him. He had had a collision down the road near Bonfield, but I was on vacation. But because I was down the road, I went down and took a photo of the police investigating and whatnot.
I had a little bit of knowledge about what happened (never confirmed). Some people I talked to (gave an indication) it wasn't going to be a good story. It looked like there was a family man that was killed in the collision and had information that it was possible that the young man was at fault. So it wasn’t good. And I knew his parents, so I wasn't looking forward to it. I was hoping while I was off somebody else was going to pick it up and do that story, but nobody did.
And I was just so not looking forward to being involved with that at all.
And I had already done a couple of stories about young people dying, that I knew or met through coaching and sports, and a couple of older people that passed on as well. And I had enough of it and I’d much rather write about people when they're still alive. And that's my goal. I know sometimes you don't have a choice, but as much as possible, I prefer to do that rather than cover the tragedies.
I think I've had my fill, so I didn't and nobody else did, and I guess we kind of just skipped over the details of that tragedy. I didn't even want to show my face at the funeral (for the young man), that kind of thing, because I knew by being a reporter and going there, I would be involved with some type of story. I didn't want to follow that crumb trail at all, it just wasn't going to be a good story one way or another.
So I was kind of hoping to never have to do them again. It's one of the reasons I sort of hung it up in the mainstream, to tell you the truth.
Stu: That got me, I got tingles. You know, I've seen some pretty bad things, too. And, you know, the family part of it is the worst, obviously. Thanks for sharing that story, Dave.
Something we run into a lot lately, especially with the guy you talked about, the “instance” of anything, so taking a photo doesn't involve driving back down to headquarters or whatever it is. We can send it instantly. And I think sometimes maybe better judgment doesn't enter into play when certain photos get used. What's your feeling on those kinds of things, Dave? Maybe a scene of a collision where someone's been injured or even killed?
Dave: Oh, I think a well-done, respectful photo that captures the tragedy, as far as the collision, I think that's fair game. I don't see why people wouldn't think that would be a bona fide news photo.
Quite often when there's an event like that, there's more to it that made it happen. And the explanation comes out … the photography, that illustration of what happened, is important to have. I think that you can take a photo professionally where it doesn't amplify the shock value but still captures the event that happened. So I, I don't think they should not run a photo if it is professionally done.
I think you can be too graphic and some of the photography can take advantage of that situation and actually traumatize people, so you can do it without doing that.
So it depends on your creativity to make sure that you capture the news value of the photo, the situation, but you don't get what I call ‘tabloid-ish.’
Stu: So, with all this perspective on the scene and you said it multiple times, being a professional about it. So, you know, having some experience with these things definitely helps get the message to readers without exploiting the situation.
Dave: Yeah, like you don't need the blood and guts in the photo. I guess that's graphic to say it like that, but you can create an illustration that captures the essence of it without, uh, and still be classy. Like I think journalists still need to be classy as best they can.
Stu: Fair enough.
Dave: You know, what makes it a little easier to cover some of these tragedies is the fact that so many people are on social media, their photos are available and you can access this. It is in the public domain if it's on Facebook and you can pick up the photo of a person that passed away without actually having to bother the family, even though it's probably best practice to contact them and to get their permission and get the photo that they want to use.
But in instances where they're not approachable and the news value or news cycle is so quick that you need to do it. It's kind of neat that you can actually pick up the photo without bothering them in their time of distress.
Stu: It's our way of maybe cutting out that death knock, at least at first, initially …
Dave: Yeah, skipping it for the immediate time.
Stu: I think you have a real point there, I've kind of come into this career bridging those two, you know, those two time periods where a lot of things were done in person. And now, with the pandemic and various reasons, a lot of things are done by phone or the internet. And I would think nothing of finding a photograph online, using it, always being respectful enough to check it out with subjects if possible. But it's not always possible.
