opinion

Please, get your news cameras out of a young woman’s funeral.

We exist in a cultural moment where there are few things we can all agree on. 

But surely the ethics of taking photographs inside a young person's funeral, when the family have asked for privacy, is one of them.

On Monday last week, 33-year-old Jaimi Kenny, the daughter of former Olympians Lisa Curry and Grant Kenny, died in hospital. 

Kenny, 57, released a statement confirming that Jaimi had "lost her battle with a long-term illness and passed away peacefully in hospital this morning in the company of loving family".

He said their hearts were broken and the pain was immense, before adding, "It goes without saying that this is a very difficult time for family and friends and we trust we will all be allowed to grieve in privacy".

And then on Saturday, an Australian media company made the decision to publish no less than eight images from the young woman's funeral. 

While I haven't sought out those images - taken of grieving relatives without their consent - commentary on Twitter gave me a pretty clear sense of what they captured. 

At least one picture is said to feature Jaimi's casket, while others show the pained expression on her mother's face. 

We know the six men who carried her coffin from the small chapel, because a photograph was taken without their knowledge. 

It's unclear who took the photographs. It is conceivable that a passer-by took them on a phone, before selling them, likely for decent money, to this particular publication. Otherwise, a paparazzo waited outside the funeral on purpose, injecting themselves into a scene where they didn't belong. 

Restrictions in Queensland right now mean that a maximum of 100 people can attend a funeral. While people who knew Jaimi might not have been legally able to attend, someone who never met her hovered just metres from her casket. That person disregarded the blatant request by Kenny only days earlier to allow a family to grieve in private, and delivered images of people at their most vulnerable to the tabloids. 

When tragedy finds its way into people's lives, there is little we on the outside can do. We cannot bring a person back from the dead. It is impossible to find the right words. The one thing any of us can do is what the aggrieved ask for. Even if that means suspending our curiosity for a moment and instead extending a modicum of respect. 

What the media appear to be overlooking here is that Jaimi was not, and had never been, a public figure. She was the first child of two star athletes, a reality she couldn't change if she wanted to. The details of her funeral are not in the public interest. What is gained from immortalising images of a crying family? What is learned? 

The counter argument is always that the pictures are taken because readers want to see them. I have no doubt the images published all over the internet are garnering significant traffic for a number of publications. But for the media to shrug our shoulders and pretend that we are automatons, simply reflecting the worst in our readers, is a lie. 

It negates the reality that everyday we make choices. Good ones and bad ones. And on Saturday, a bad choice was made by someone who considered the ethics. And then considered the numbers. And chose the numbers. "But you clicked" is the excuse borrowed by the lazy journalist, pretending that the size of their platform doesn't also come with significant responsibility. 

News cameras do not belong at a person's funeral when the family has explicitly asked for privacy. 

And when Kenny requested privacy, it is known he was also referring to Jaimi's cause of death. 

The family have not commented on how she died, except to say she struggled with a "long-term illness". It is clear, at least at this stage, that they do not want the public to know. 

The trawling through social media responses to the family's announcements, calls to hospitals on the Sunshine Coast and speculation about particular tributes by media publications goes against these simple wishes. 

What we know, is that on Monday of last week, a 33-year-old woman died in hospital. 

Her friends and family are in mourning, and this will likely be one of the worst weeks of their lives. 

In the depths of grief, the few words they've been able to communicate to the public are a request for privacy. 

Cameras did not belong at her funeral.

Surely we can all agree on that. 

Mamamia does not, and will never, publish paparazzi photos. We do not support the paparazzi economy. 

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

bronte 4 years ago
It is totally discusting that someone would take these photos.  I was at the funeral and I spotted a man dressed  in all black hiding in the bushes. How can people sleep at night?  Let the family grieve in privacy. 

mum12 4 years ago 1 upvotes
Pre internet death notices in the paper were the way a family could share the loss of a loved one and the details of the funeral. Today a social media post can convey the same message instantly and be analysed re shared and commented upon. Unfortunately (and not accepting this as ok) it means a private moment can quickly become an unfiltered public moment that people feel the need to comment or be curious about only further fuelling the news cycle. I do believe your article raises an interesting point not easily solved -how do we encourage society collectively to be more ethical, empathetic and understanding that just because something is shared on social media rather than a notice in the paper that it makes it ok to intrude on a deeply life altering moment. No easy answer just articles like these that will hopefully jolt people back to a better sense of reality.