![]() ![]() He said he specifically wanted to keep the detail about cheerleading in the story. Martínez told me he made one small edit to the introduction, changing the copy from "And in Texas, two cheerleaders - in high school - were shot." to what was read on the air, "And in Texas, two high school cheerleaders were shot. But the last two are identified by their status as both students and cheerleaders. Two people are identified by their age and gender. The parallel construction of the sentences exacerbates the unevenness. And in Texas, two high school cheerleaders were shot after one of them accidentally got into the wrong car." In Missouri, a 16-year-old boy was shot when he rang the wrong doorbell. Here's how it sounded on air: "In upstate New York, a 20-year-old woman was shot and killed after the car she was in pulled into the wrong driveway. To help listeners understand the expert's analysis, host A Martínez started with details about the victims who were shot. This story was meant to introduce Morning Edition listeners to an expert on gun violence who could offer some analysis to the three unrelated shootings, which all involved people making innocent mistakes. and in my view it also perpetuates the assumption that we somehow have to "prove" these people didn't "deserve" to be shot by sharing some non-threatening achievement/activity/characteristic about them. The reporter led with a description of several victims, as follows: "A 20-year-old woman in New York, a 16-year-old boy in Missouri, and two high school cheerleaders in Texas." Why on EARTH are those two young people being identified as "cheerleaders" instead of human beings? Why is that the single most defining characteristic that NPR has chosen to use to describe them? I find it so troubling. I was listening to Morning Edition (I think) while driving to work, and there was a story about the recent spate of shootings of people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the NPR Contact page. Letters are edited for length and clarity. Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. We talked to the host who conducted the interview to find out. The listener wondered why and whether those details were the best choice. For the third shooting, the victims were described with different details. For two of the incidents, the victims were described by their age and gender. The introduction described the victims in three different, unrelated shootings. They grab the audience's attention, summarize the facts, and establish the expert's relevance.Ī Morning Edition listener critiqued the introduction of an expert who was brought on the show to discuss the string of recent shootings involving victims who had mistakenly approached the wrong place. The short introductions to these interviews do a lot of work. Producers who work for magazine shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered are constantly on the lookout for insightful perspectives from people who can shed light on an issue or help the audience better understand the broader context. One standard NPR story form is the interview with an expert on a topic that is trending in the news. Carlos Carmonamedina for NPR Public Editor ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |