Stranger than fiction

Is it just me, or has the media (and the world, in general) become more and more gruesome over the past ten years?  Television shows like CSI show more gore and violence than ever before, the evening news is dominated by fatal car crashes and shootings, and newspapers publish detailed stories of murders, rapes and the like.

This brings us to the question:  Should reporters sacrifice fact for sensationalism?

For example, take the November 6 article from The Los Angeles Times.  The article, "Forest Service spokesman found dead," covers the apparent murder-suicide of Forest Service spokesman, Matt Mathes and his wife. 

The article discussed the suicide note, the crime scene, and told readers that not only did Mathes shoot his wife, Karen, he shot both their dogs before killing himself.  Not only are details about the suicide note unneccessary, but if one were to read the whole article, confusion about the lack of solid facts may arise.  It seems the reporter does not really have all the information necessary for making this a legit and thorough article.

"In a handwritten suicide note found at the couple's home in the Bay Area town of American Canyon, Mathes laid out how their property was to be dispersed after death...He also spelled ou the rationale for his life's final act, citing his wife's chronic illness."  -- excerpt from the article on the contents of the suicide note.

Perhaps the editors at the Los Angeles Times really pushed for this article to come out before they had more information.  When I read it, however, several questions arose.  For example, the following quote from the American Canyon Police Chief, Brian Banducci:

"It sounds like he was a pretty nice guy.  It seems he loved his wife and couldn't live without her."

Really, Brian?  Would a nice guy shoot his wife and then himself?  Don't even get me started on the dogs...

Sure, every article on a topic like this has to have the "token naive guy/girl" stating for the record that they "never thought this would happen to someone like this," but couldn't the reporter have perhaps tried to find a different reason why Mathes was deemed a "pretty nice guy"?  The quote doesn't make Banducci sound particularly intelligent, nor does it really capture the seriousness of the murder-suicide.  Banducci sounds as if he is justifying the killings.

Police dispatchers received a call around 6 a.m. on the day of the murder-suicide "from a man believed to be Mathes saying his wife was sick and wanted to die."

So, they don't now if it was Mathes?  Why the "believed to be"?  All I know is, if I were writing the article, I would be required to nail down if it were or weren't Mathes.  Clearly it was, since the bodies were found at the Mathes home after the call was traced.  Or is the reporter leaving room to imply that maybe the "suicide" could potentially be taken out of the "murder-suicide"?

As far as the wife's illness goes, the article goes on to tell that the Napa County coroner's office would not give specifics, but said that her disease was chronic--not terminal. 

Another quote that ties in with Banducci's:

"I knew he was married, but honestly until today I didn't even know her name," - Jason Kirchner, a co-worker of Mathes, who sat in the cubicle next to him.

Banducci said it seemed Mathes really cared about his wife.  If he loved her as much as Banducci is implying, wouldn't a co-worker at least know his wife's name?

The reporter could have spoken to someone who knew Mathes a little better -- a relative, a manager, someone who worked closely with him, children (if there were any, of course).  The quote from Kirchner could have been solid (not to mention show that Mathes was somewhat of a mysterious guy) if it were included with another quote from someone who knew him a bit better - someone who could give insight as to what type of person he was away from work.  Let's just say that if I had been assigned to write this story, I would not have felt confident with it being printed the way it currently is.

Perhaps everything in the article really happened the way it was reported.  Perhaps I'm being a little too skeptical.  However, it just seems like there are gaps in this report--as if the reporter was leaving room in case more details were found out to suggest otherwise. 

Sure, this man was a spokesperson for the Forest Service and someone who deserved to have the world know he had died, but since he wasn't a celebrity, politician, or extremely influential person, couldn't the details have waited to be put out until they had more information?  The story would have been more solid if this were the case.

Fact or sensationalism?  Here's another story which contains gruesome details and is still somewhat unclear as to what really happened:  "Two Portland men accused of chopping a kitten's head off."

Comments

[Michele]

I have to say that I found your article very interesting. In fact, the man, wife, and their dogs were my next door neighbors of 14 years. Nobody in the neighborhood really new them (as far as I know) and, from my point of view, they were NOT as friendly as the article makes them out to be. I do feel extremely sad by what happened, but it doesn't surprise me.

In the 14 years that we have been neighbors, I have never seen anybody ever come to their home and I don't know of any of the neighbors who were ever invited over for a visit. I guess, on the other hand, we never invited them over to our house for a visit either. In fact, the only time that Matt ever stepped foot onto my porch was when he and my husband had some harsh words because he was demanding that I move my car that was parked in front of his house (which had only been there for about 15 minutes).

I really don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but it seems to me, also, that the article was trying to justify the murder/suicide . . . and don't even get me started on the dogs either.