|
washingtonpost.com
Before showing me photos of last night's bridge collapse, washingtonpost.com forced me to watch this ad. No kidding. |
As I was starting my day just a half hour ago, I turned on the radio and heard the news of yesterday's bridge collapse in Minneapolis. I have friends in the Twin Cities, so I immediately jumped onto my laptop to learn more.
First stop: Google News, to get an overview of which news outlets were offering what kinds of coverage. There I saw a link to the Washington Post's online coverage. I clicked over to that, because right away I wanted to see photos and washingtonpost.com typically does a fist-class job with photo slideshows.
The Post's photo gallery was indeed stunning (if chilling, because of the subject). But I was dismayed to have to watch a short video ad before I could get to the slideshow. That seemed crass to me, given the circumstances of breaking news of a tragedy.
It got worse: When I reloaded the slideshow in a separate browser tab, the ad that played was the "scarf" commercial, from Nationwide Insurance's "Life comes at you fast" campaign. Talk about bad, bad taste and timing...
This made me wonder: Maybe news organizations should consider temporarily suspending must-watch ads before granting access to online multimedia coverage of breaking news of a tragedy. What I saw this morning created the appearance of trying to profit from tragedy, or at least indifference to viewers' concern. I'm sure that wasn't the Post's intent, but appearances do matter -- especially when delivering news of a tragedy.
Does your news org have any such policy? Why or why not?
I'm confused. Is the profession of journalism just a business...
