When 'Sob Stories' Mislead: The Risks of Human‑Interest Framing in Journalism

Human-interest features can illuminate systemic problems, but when they trade context for sentiment they risk distorting public debate. Emotional storytelling is a powerful tool; used without balance, it can mislead readers about responsibility, risk, and the scale of the problem.

Choose subjects who merit sympathy. A recent feature tried to present a person who used another's identity as a sympathetic subject, even though that behavior caused real harm. The American man whose Social Security number was stolen — Dan Kluver — spent years undoing the damage: defending against wrongful claims, clearing his name with the IRS, and enduring the reputational fallout after an impostor who used his identity was connected to a fatal traffic collision. Identity theft is a deliberate crime with victims who shoulder financial loss and long-term emotional burden; profiles that downplay that agency risk misrepresenting who deserves public empathy.

Context matters when profiling people with criminal histories. Another profile recounted the case of Orville Etoria, a Jamaican national who lived in the United States for decades and described his deportation in stark, evocative terms. But Etoria’s record includes serious felony convictions — including armed robbery and a homicide-related conviction — and he served long terms in prison. Presenting him primarily as a wronged immigrant without foregrounding those facts can produce a distorted narrative that confuses victimhood with culpability.

"I want to say, to all the African nations who are taking people into their country in chains and shackles, it's not a good picture," Etoria was quoted saying. "You're hurting these people, spiritually and emotionally."

That quote captures the pain of removal for many people, but it should be weighed alongside clear exposition of the individual’s criminal history and the legal grounds for deportation. Readers deserve both empathy and facts so they can judge the broader questions of policy and fairness.

Human-interest framing can be misapplied across issues. During debates about the expiration of pandemic-era health insurance subsidies, outlets highlighted an early-retiree couple with a relatively high household income as emblematic of impending hardship. Framing affluent, voluntarily retired individuals as dire victims stretches the meaning of hardship and risks skewing policy discussion. Journalists ought to make trade-offs and eligibility clear, not rely solely on emotional resonance.

What responsible human-interest journalism looks like. Well-crafted features combine individual stories with data, legal context, and voices from affected communities. They explain causation, clarify accountability, and avoid transforming a single anecdote into a general rule. A balanced profile might center someone’s emotion while also identifying how common their experience is, who is responsible, and what policy options exist to address the underlying problem.

Journalists should inform readers, not manipulate them. If a piece chooses to tug at the heartstrings, it has an obligation to be transparent about facts that change how readers should interpret the story. Sympathy is earned through truthful, contextual reporting — not assumed by casting any difficult human experience as an automatic claim on public pity.

By Becket Adams