Sometimes these stories can be very interesting, and from the perspective of a curious journalist, often fun. I really only spend a number of hours with each story, and once the story's completed, I usually send it out of my mind to make room for the next one.
But there are those certain stories that stay with me. Sometimes it's because it is an unusual story, or the people involved really spoke to my heart (yes, I like human interest stories).
I can become more emotionally attached to these stories, and once they are completed, I still want to know how the real-life story pans out.
In some cases, doing a follow-up story helps the people involved. Maybe they're trying to increase some kind of awareness, and the updated coverage is very welcome. They're only too happy to meet up again and share updates on their adventures.
But other times, I think a follow-up story might be more invasive. Many times with human interest stories, it's quite enough for the subject to pour out their heart to the stranger with the notepad, recorder and camera. It's very brave of them. And I am grateful when they do.
Readers may become very attached to these subjects, with their unique stories. And they clamor for more coverage.
But I believe that delicacy is important with these types of human interest stories.
Am I trying to help the subject by re-sharing their story to even more potential readers? Or am I unnecessarily digging up more information about someone who really has reached the limit of press coverage?
I can never determine this in a generalized way. I need to communicate well with my subjects, and encourage them to communicate their opinions on this matter with me.
I'm a communicator, after all. To not do so would be dishonoring my role.
No comments:
Post a Comment