Live updates from memorial (http://newsok.com/updates-public-memorial-service-for-aubrey-mcclendon/article/5483331)

This may be one of the most tasteless things I've seen. A reporter live blogging (with pics) from a seat in Aubrey's memorial service. Just when I didn't think NewsOK could get any worse.

That's pretty tacky

Is it inherently different than televising a memorial, or is it the medium that makes it seem more tacky?

Is it inherently different than televising a memorial, or is it the medium that makes it seem more tacky?

Televising a memorial is much different. A cameraman on a perch is not intrusive to the service and doesn't serve as a distraction to the folks in the congregation.

This reporter is sitting in the service, on her phone, essentially texting the entire time, taking pictures of the program, etc.

I think it's poor taste to use a phone, at all, in church, but made worse by being in a memorial service. If she wanted to report on it, she could have stood in the back and taken notes, then written an article about it. Do we need a live blog about the memorial service as if it's an iPhone launch?

Yeah, I see that. I had the same inherent "icky" feeling about it when I saw the link.

I did, yes, I looked once. . . thought barretd might be overly sensitive, but alas, no. disgusted and sickened. . . . more than a new "low". totally and unequivocally disrespectful. the pictures and snippets of quotes make it seem like reporting from a rock concert. . .it's big news that it took her 20 minutes to get in the parking lot. . .this is a funeral/memorial . . . not a play x play of an commercial event. Shame on you NewsOK

I'd be honored if someone blogged during my service.

I'd be honored if someone blogged during my service.

Actually, you'd be dead.

Maybe...................maybe not.

Maybe...................maybe not.

Hmmm...Good point.

I wouldnt have heard the good things about Aubrey from the people who spoke at the funeral if it wasnt for the tweets. It brought the celebration of his life to more people than only those at his funeral. And I would think Aubrey would have been ok with it. So I think its a good thing, that is if you are able to tweet without distracting the service or the people around you.

I wouldnt have heard the good things about Aubrey from the people who spoke at the funeral if it wasnt for the tweets. It brought the celebration of his life to more people than only those at his funeral. And I would think Aubrey would have been ok with it. So I think its a good thing, that is if you are able to tweet without distracting the service or the people around you.

The same could have been accomplished in a news article posted immediately following the service.

I think many are too sensitive...... For no reason.

The times they are a changin'.

I wouldnt have heard the good things about Aubrey from the people who spoke at the funeral if it wasnt for the tweets. It brought the celebration of his life to more people than only those at his funeral. And I would think Aubrey would have been ok with it. So I think its a good thing, that is if you are able to tweet without distracting the service or the people around you.

The part I highlighted is the key. The blogger should have been at the very back or in an alcove where she couldn't disturb anyone else.

Do we know that she wasn't, or that anyone in the service or family was disturbed by this at all?

Was this service open to the public?

I think many are too sensitive...... For no reason.

And I think many have just gotten so attached to their electronic devices they've lost any sense of etiquette.

Do we know that she wasn't, or that anyone in the service or family was disturbed by this at all?

From her pictures, it appears she got a seat, so I would assume she was in the congregation.

Again, what was accomplished by liveblogging this service? Could the same thing not have been accomplished with a news article immediately following the service?

I'm just saying it was in poor taste. I don't really care for NewsOK, anyway, it just struck me as a bad call.

From her pictures, it appears she got a seat, so I would assume she was in the congregation.

Again, what was accomplished by liveblogging this service? Could the same thing not have been accomplished with a news article immediately following the service?

I'm just saying it was in poor taste. I don't really care for NewsOK, anyway, it just struck me as a bad call.

Agreed. Plus, some of the totally funeral-appropriate tweets ("Huge crowd at Aubrey McClendon memorial. Took me 20 minutes to get in the parking lot." "It's a packed house, people are standing in the back of the room at Crossings Community Church." "[retweeting someone] I'm literally in the chapel/sanctuary at Crossings watching on a video board/projector (?)") suggest there may not have been anywhere to live-tweet the service without distracting people attending the service. I think the decision to live-tweet a funeral is in bad taste and the substance of many of the tweets made it worse. Seems to me a much higher quality summary of the memorial could have been accomplished through an actual news article, as barretd suggests.

Do we know if she received permission from the family or not?

Do we know if she received permission from the family or not?
I can't imagine someone having the nerve to pose such an inane question to the family. Live "coverage" (as with the bombing and other memorial services) is one thing. . ."gossipy" snippet observations via twitter are in another matter altogether. . .daughter is speaking. . .oops, sorry. . son is speaking. . . .
A new low in media coverage.

I can't imagine someone having the nerve to pose such an inane question to the family. Live "coverage" (as with the bombing and other memorial services) is one thing. . ."gossipy" snippet observations via twitter are in another matter altogether. . .daughter is speaking. . .oops, sorry. . son is speaking. . . .
A new low in media coverage.

I don't know. Tacky? yes. but to me, not that big of a deal. I was going to ask about the bombing memorial services. Not only are they "live coverage", but people tweet and blog during those ceremonies as well. Not asking to be ugly, but does this offend you as well, or is it just individual ceremonies?

I don't know. Tacky? yes. but to me, not that big of a deal. I was going to ask about the bombing memorial services. Not only are they "live coverage", but people tweet and blog during those ceremonies as well. Not asking to be ugly, but does this offend you as well, or is it just individual ceremonies?

It depends, I think. If we're talking about people blogging and tweeting from within a funeral/memorial ceremony, yes, that is offensive, to me. If there's, for lack of a better term, a press room of some sort, being fed a closed circuit feed of the ceremony, I have no problem with the tweeting/blogging. I still think it's tacky to liveblog a funeral for an individual, and I don't think the bombing memorial is a fair comparison, but if it's going to be done, do it from outside the actual ceremony.

If you have no problem with it, that is perfectly fine. This piece of journalism just rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't agree that tweeting/blogging is 'the journalism of today', so first off there is a difference between actual reporting and whatever the hell that is. As it turns out, giving everyone their own printing press doesn't actually do anything for actual news reporting. I'd list a number of 'fake news' sites as references, but there are simply too many to count. Snopes has gone from debunking actual urban legends to answering if "Did Trump really say Martians are taking all our jobs?" is a real headline, and every single answer is "X is a parody site, dummy". But I digress.

Back to the point, a funeral or a memorial is a time for quiet, respectful reflection. If you truly can't put the phone down for 20 minutes, if you truly believe "OMG, U wont b-leev how many ppl R here, I was almost l8! LOL" is appropriate for such a venue, please just don't attend.

Sooo, we don't actually know if they asked the family or not, the general consensus is to just assume they didn't and continue to demonize them?

Sooo, we don't actually know if they asked the family or not, the general consensus is to just assume they didn't and continue to demonize them?

I don't think I've demonized anyone. Regardless of whether or not anyone asked the family, the idea itself is in poor taste. Certainly, the feelings of the family of the deceased are to be considered, but what of the feelings of the rest of the mourners in attendance? And where does one draw the line? Would it be OK for her to take in an iPad and do the same thing? A laptop?

It was a bad call by the editor or whoever decided she should do the piece. Asking the family shouldn't have even entered into the equation because it shouldn't have been considered worth doing to begin with.

Here's the thing. If the family approved, then who the hell are any of us to find it in poor taste? Not me, and not you either.

And given just who the family is, and the fact that the article summarizing the tweets has been live on the Newsok site for a couple days now, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they either approved it or don't care. They would certainly have the influence to get it taken down if they wanted.

Here's the thing. If the family approved, then who the hell are any of us to find it in poor taste? Not me, and not you either.

Odd. I swear when I went to sleep last night it was in America, where I was free to hold whatever opinion I liked, and not only hold that opinion, but express and discuss it. I *thought* I woke up in the same bed, in the same house...maybe the whole shebang was moved while I slept? What country am I in now that someone else holds the right to decide my tastes for me? Can I move back to America? Cause I don't like it...or am I now not allowed to not like it? Do I have to move myself, or will my bed and house come with, via whatever mystical means were used to remove them in the first place?

You are free to hold whichever opinions you like, just as I am free to think those opinions are ridiculous and silly. Oh no, an uninvolved anonymous person on the internet is offended, whatever shall we do.

Oh yeah, nothing, because it is irrelevant.

Here's the thing. If the family approved, then who the hell are any of us to find it in poor taste? Not me, and not you either.

And given just who the family is, and the fact that the article summarizing the tweets has been live on the Newsok site for a couple days now, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they either approved it or don't care. They would certainly have the influence to get it taken down if they wanted.

I've only spoken for myself here, not for the family, not for you, etc. Of course, you and I can find different things tasteful or not. If the family paid, themselves, for her to blog the funeral, I wouldn't feel any less disgusted by it. My feelings of what is or what is not tasteful are exactly that, my feelings. Who's demonizing who in this thread?

Live updates from memorial (http://newsok.com/updates-public-memorial-service-for-aubrey-mcclendon/article/5483331)

This may be one of the most tasteless things I've seen. A reporter live blogging (with pics) from a seat in Aubrey's memorial service. Just when I didn't think NewsOK could get any worse.

This may be one of the most tasteless things I've seen. Just when I didn't think NewsOK could get any worse. Pretty sure it was you. Or did you mean that in some sort of neutral, non-judgmental fashion? I thought you made yourself pretty clear.

This may be one of the most tasteless things I've seen. Just when I didn't think NewsOK could get any worse. Pretty sure it was you. Or did you mean that in some sort of neutral, non-judgmental fashion? I thought you made yourself pretty clear.

Still not sure who I have demonized, but I think, at this point, you're just baiting for entertainment's sake. Saying it's tasteless is not demonizing. Neither is saying NewsOK made a terrible call letting it happen.

Everyone has made their points here.

Thread closed; let's move on.