Media have to show respect for others’ grief

I’ve never been big on funeral coverage. It seems like an intrusion to me.

When the departed has been a prominent part of the community, it’s difficult not to cover the funeral or memorial service, though, because people who aren’t able to attend want to know a little bit about it. In a sense, the person has been lost not just to friends and family, but to the entire community.

So, we send reporters to services for well-known community leaders who have a high level of name recognition. A reporter can attend, keep a low profile, and not intrude on anyone’s grief. And that’s where I draw the line.

It has to be an unusual situation where we would send a photographer to a service for someone who has passed away. A reporter with a pencil and notebook, sitting quietly in a pew, is one thing. A photographer clanking around with three cameras, a bunch of lenses and a bag full of filters and flashes, angling in front of people for a good shot is entirely something different.

I wouldn’t like it if it was a member of my family involved, and for the most part I don’t think others like it either. It’s a judgment call, of course. There are rare occasions when someone’s passing has been of such significance to the community, or it’s occurred in such circumstances that the entire community has a direct involvement, that full coverage is warranted.

Otherwise, friends and family deserve not to be interfered with in their time of sorrow. We in the media have to temper our instincts for getting a good photo that will attract people to a page in our newspaper, with respect for those who are going through a difficult time.

That’s why we didn’t take pictures at the service for Dick Dickens, and why we won’t be taking pictures at the service for David Ross.