I wasn’t going to post this, but seeing the Gloria Allred thread kick-started me. (Still don’t know what the OP’s issue was with her.)
Apparently there’s been some new development in the Peterson case. Greta Van Susteren was on TV with Laci’s parents, and at one point said, “Sharon, how do you get through the day?”
Unable to believe she’d asked that, I whipped my head around to see Mrs. Rocha fumbling for words. I have a funny feeling that she was suppressing the desire to say “Well, I start with the vodka shots about 10am…”*, but instead, she managed to come up with something about keeping Laci always in her heart.
Listen, you walking wax job, if you can’t come up with a better question than that, shut the hell up! What was the purpose of asking that? Really.
Okay, that’s lame. Can somebody take it from here?
*I do not wish to imply that Mrs. Rocha is an alcoholic; that would have been a sarcastic remark, about the vodka shots. But in her shoes, I would have been sorely tempted to make such a remark. Or just say, “What the hell kind of question is that?”
Leave it to the media to ask the stupidest, cruelest questions. They ALL do it. I wouldn’t do a tv interview on anything but a theme park opening. No fucking way.
Huh. Without further context, the question doesn’t strike me as all that unreasonable. I would imagine that making it through each day while grieving is pretty difficult. Maybe Mrs Rocha had some useful suggestions for other people going through the same thing that she could have shared. Or maybe Greta could have used the question as a springboard for offering up contact information for victim/survivor support groups.
Or Maybe Mrs Rocha could stay off the TV if there’s a concern that she might get asked a question. Can’t really interview her if she doesn’t agree to it after all.
I’m with you, Otto. It seems like a pretty standard question to me.
Any time there’s a tragedy it seems that question is asked, and the answers tend to be stuff like God, my supportive family, etc. I always figured that was supposed to inspire people who have suffered a similar tragedy.
I’m not sure why the person being asked would be offended or even uncomfortable with it - if anything it might make the person sort of examine his or her support system and really realize and appreciate the resources that have been providing comfort.
No, there’s a difference, Robot Arm. I think, anyway.
“How do you feel” is an awful question, because it’s completely meaningless and cannot possibly yield any useful information. Not only that, it’s really quite unanswerable.
“How do you get through the day” is better, because it can yield a useful answer. The respondent could explain what he or she does to cope with the tragedy.
The former question is meant to evoke a certain emotional response, whereas the latter is meant to elicit some kind of informative response.
You give them too much credit, dan. And believe me, I’m the last person who should accuse someone else of that.
“How do you get through the day?” could be a useful question in some contexts. If you were in a clincial/psychological/support-group type of setting, and there were people there who knew how to cope with tragedy and others who needed help, then I could see it. But if you’re really looking for that kind of factual information, there’s a better way to phrase the question, and a better time and place to ask it.
When someone asks that question in a TV interview, it’s just another variation on “How do you feel?”
[sub]Whether “how do you feel?” is a valid interview question is something I haven’t entirely made up my mind about. That might be an interesting Great Debate.[/sub]
What better time to ask it than during an interview? It’s not like she was ambushed, with a microphone thrust in her face. She ostensibly was completely prepared for it.
Perhaps the question could have been, “How do you cope?” and that would have been a little better.
But I don’t think a support group is the only appropriate setting. Since this was an interview, prearranged (right?), it seems to me to be a reasonable time and place to ask it.
I didn’t see the interview. Was it just a quick piece in which the interview was conducted remotely? Or was it a sit down? If the latter, I’d have to think the guests were briefed - briefly! - on what questions would be asked. If they didn’t want the question asked, they wouldn’t have to stay. No one was forcing them to be interviewed.
I started a thread about this kind of pandering journalism a loooooong time ago - what prompted my ire was a picture in our local newspaper of a father whose child was just killed, in an absolute agony of grief. I’m a firm believer in “the public does not have a right to know everything” - some things are intensely private, and a parent’s grief is one of those things.
I also agree that “How do you feel?”/ “How do you get through the day?” is a terrible question - “I feel like dying, my world has pretty much ended, I’m on the brink of suicide - my child just died! How the f*** do you think I feel? How do I get through the day?!? Slowly, painfully. The tranquilizers are helping a lot.”
Not only are questions like this stupid and intrusive, but they are useless as journalistic efforts. If you want to interview someone in a horrible position like that, at least try to come up with some real questions.
The answer doesn’t have to be about how the person hit the bottle or turned to quaaludes.
“How do you get through the day” = “How are you coping with this tragedy” = “In what ways has your everyday lifestyle been altered as a result of this tragedy?” Answer: “Well, I go to church a little more often, and every so my friends will take me for a Girls Night Out. I am also now a member of a few support groups, and they have helped me very much in getting through this.”
Dan you speak like one who has not been through a life altering tragedy.
Not that I am saying turning to the bottle or the 'ludes means you have. But ask me a question like that again and I a) may punch your lights out or b) may return to rocking and snivelling in the corner. Both of which seem like more “appropriate” answers.
Q. How are you coping with this tragedy
A. not very fucking well. Thanks for asking
Q. In what ways has your everyday lifestyle altered as a result of this tragedy.
A. Um Shitloads…I will let you know dates and times when I stop feeling numb
Oh and Elret this is still a daft thing to say, “I always figured that was supposed to inspire people who have suffered a similar tragedy”. People do not talk about tragedys to aid the public good (except possibly for years later) if anything, in the midst of a tragedy they are looking for others to inspire them by not asking retarded questions
Thankfully, I haven’t. So yeah, it’s easy for me to say.
But I still think there’s a difference between being asked questions at a sit-down, taped interview and being asked questions at a press conference or even walking down the street. In the former situation, guests are often briefed on what questions will be asked. If they don’t want to discuss certain things, then they usually explain their misgivings to the interviewer.
“How are you coping…” means “in what ways are you coping”; there’s nothing nasty or prying about this question. Sharing how one is coping with a tragedy can only help others, IMO.
Often when one is going through one of those moments “how are you coping” is a minute by minute thing, I shouldn’t imagine cameras would make the coping much easier.
But I take your point Dan …that wasn’t a direct snipe
I bet it’s not easy. I don’t know why they bother giving the interviews, though. (And I mean in general, not specifically to the parents in this case.)
BTW, Greta looks the way she does because she had much-celebrated plastic surgery - I think it was a facelift.
And you don’t think that it is even remotely possible that some people, in the middle of tragedy, might find strength in the idea (whether it really works or not) that they can help someone else, and that their own pain is not in vain?
I’m enough of an angst-ridden poetic type that “How do you feel” would be construed by me as an invitation for a long diatribe on barely-related societal ills. After all, after what happened to me I’d have EARNED the right to go off on everyone.
But I’m not articulate enough to make them sound any more coherent than the Unibomber
