I recently took a class covering the pros and cons of the media covering certain crimes.

The media is a powerful thing and they can sway the way the public views almost anything. There are victims that should be considered when reporting stories. For instance, a murder victim may no longer be alive, but to release sensitive reports about the crime before it's concluded can lead the public to make judgement before there is an actual verdict. I agree King 5 has done a pretty good job. Honestly, most local news stations draw a much safer line.

If I were in charge of knowing when and what to report, I would probably introduce the activity going on with a tradgedy, but I would not make any conclusions or statements, but rather...follow up with public on the story before, during, and after an event. I don't know how many times I've seen a report and then there was no follow up to it. This leaves the whole public asking, what happened? Was it nothing? Or was it something too scandalous?

Leave families alone and let them come to you. Instead of calling, send a "I'm sorry" card with a gift basket, offering help to reach out to the community if they want it. If they do not, well...give them time, they would most likely choose the team that didn't harrass them when they were down. Think about the victims first and formost, the story will prevail eventually. It might not be "breaking news" but it is news that people will see without the famlies yelling at the media. That would put the power of the victim on display and allow them to portray a person who is being attacked by the media after being attacked by the public.