PTSD case has roots in journalism issues

Robert Feder's column about Marcella Raymond's work-related PTSD brings up a too-rarely discussed topic: the public's right to know vs the public's need to know.

There's a reason reporters sometimes get criticized. In his book "Go Quietly Or Else," former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, in describing his half-brothers funeral writes "At the cemetery, the media became even more aggressive trampling nearby graves to get into position for close observation for the burial … the final indignity - a microphone on a long pole was being held just over our heads to eavesdrop on our conversation. It was hardly the news media's finest hour."

It's tempting to blame reporters for trying to interview a grieving parent. What's easy to forget is that reporters do it for the same reason most people do their job: someone tells them to do it.

Those who have worked in broadcasting, customer service, and /or telemarketing - I've worked in all three - can confirm that there is truth to that annoying automated phrase "Your call may be monitored."

I never experienced PTSD-level stress, but rest assured that the person you called, or called you has to answer for why he/she wasn't more aggressive in selling that aluminum siding or upselling the cable customer who initially called with a complaint.

Chicago radio is littered with horror stories about excellent announcers losing their jobs due to ratings or ownership changes. And that's not counting the news people covering tragedies that Ms. Raymond described. Major market scrutiny never ends, even when things are going well.

If a TV station, to promote decency, stops interviewing freshly grieving parents, will the other stations follow suit regardless of ratings? Will viewers keep watching that station?

Taking the first step would be a bold move for any news organization. Volunteers?

James H. Newton

Itasca