Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Commentary

2 comments
Welcome, login to add non-anonymous comments
Anonymous
2017-08-30 10:26:12

Grant,
I think there might need to be a bit of clarification here, starting with "that Facebook quote". It wasn't a public Facebook post per se, it was a post to a moderated Faebook page with a membership consisting primarily of Con's neighbors. I happen to be one of those neighbors but more importantly I believe we were friends who saw each other regularly even if we weren't close friends. There was some controversy about whether the post was appropriate and firstly with the poster being chastised and secondly with it being subsequently removed. It's removal was something I disagreed with. I read it the same way I would have taken a phone call or read a letter from someone else who also considered himself one of Con's friends - as a common courtesy among friends who are also trying to deal with information and to mourn in their own way. For some that is in solitude and for others that needs to be as a community. Is there a time period within which not to do that? I don't think so and in some cultures it's practice not to provide the family with distance but to provide them with company and solace from the moment its needed. Is this a problem or an amplified problem for the media? Frankly I think that's a secondary consideration and, at least In this instance, the media could have contacted the poster to determine his relationship and credibility without having to make those embarrassing calls to the immediate family.
Regards,
Ken

Anonymous
2017-08-30 16:16:02

Thanks for your comment Ken. I am pretty sure I saw a different Facebook post alerting me to Con's death. It was from a friend of his, who I am friends with on Facebook, but it was not part of any group.
I agree with your comments about timing. Facebook (and other social media platforms) has turned people into reporters and they report deaths they hear about, others losing their jobs etc. Some restraint would be beneficial.