Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Obits, death notices, whatever

Mark Thompson sent a note to Romenesko recently commenting on the definition of an obituary. He took umbrage at someone calling a "paid obituary" an "obituary." A brief excerpt:

As newspapers have stopped producing obituaries, they have begun soliciting faux articles written by the deceased relatives or the funeral home. These are not cheap; I recall a relative's "obituary" that recently ran in the Providence Journal for the tidy sum of $700 (only could people on the business side be so stupid as to wring money from those in mourning and then wonder why they are falling in public esteem). However, these should not be called obituaries. They are ads, plain a simple. They generally don't include less savory aspects of a person's past -- a divorce, for example -- and are crafted by the sensibilities of the survivors.
(Link to full letter.)

I recall many nights on the desk fighting with survivors over the details of the "obituary". Most didn't want to give the cause of death and most wanted to control what was said and also review the content. I used to think it was important to fight for that information for the general good of the republic even if it meant pissing off a reader or two.

In recent years I've changed my mind. "Paid obituaries" or whatever you want to call them are not a scam to "wring" money from bereaved survivors. Instead, it's a chance to those to control what is most certainly the only article ever written about their loved one. It's a chance to show some respect and decency. It's also a chance to charge someone for something I think they probably find worthwhile, especially if they can control what is said about their dearly departed. Would it better to have an objective piece on the person, warts and all? Sure, but weighed against further alienating an alienated reading public then I think not.

I also have a sneaking suspicion readers don't know the difference and if they did, couldn't care less. Another case of reporters fighting for readers' rights that the readers don't necessarily want.

I say all this referring mainly to small and medium size papers. Giants such as the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. can still afford to practice the art of writing obits, something I have great respect for. But the majority of papers would benefit from charging for obits.

0 comments: