The world is a scary place. This scenario applies to journalists, too. Of course, there are different levels of fear.
Some people are currently afraid they'll lose their homes. Individuals are worried they'll lose their jobs. Most don't worry with a sense of deep seriousness about getting brutally murdered.
But that's exactly what happened to Anne Pressly, who was a popular anchorwoman for Arkansas television. She was 26. "Pressly was beaten around the head, face and neck," the USA Today story said.
Women, especially the individuals who choose to go into broadcast journalism, are faced with sad, rational choices from early on. Most people who seek information about the world, aka journalists, have sharp minds and have thought about things deeply, appropriately, and smartly.
When a person is in the public sphere, she's obviously more out there than ever before and more out there than most. I remember Lynn Holley, Illinois' academic programs coordinator, giving a speech to my Journalism 200 class for the '06 spring semester. She was discussing all the important aspects of journalism and especially internships, but I specifically recall her bringing up broadcast journalism and the word "stalker" and the fact that women can pretty much expect at least one type of individual or act; it was stated as fact -- like stating the grass is green or that George Carlin was funny.
And she's right.
To be clear, the suspicions leveled in the aforementioned USA Today story and other stories scattered throughout the country regarding Pressly's murder suggest she was the victim of a random attack. Who knows if television and being well known had anything to do with the horror, pain, and suffering she went through?
Public figures go through the prospects of getting stalked at a very high rate. Some of what lures crazy individuals are attractiveness and desire, and many female broadcast journalists at least in small part factor in their looks when selecting the medium of television. Television people are better looking than the rest of us. And, not that this needs to be mentioned, Pressly had blond hair and blue eyes. So, women must be able to stomach the prospect of going on even after major scares. They must stomach filing that next report under humiliating and unthinkable threats.
And though the world should change for the better, it's not. And the concern for women is not to detract from males who get stalked. Getting stalked, threatened, etc., seems to me to happen to high profile, good-looking women at a very high rate. There should definitely be some pause for each and every person, especially women, who want to go into broadcast journalism. The journalist will put herself out there for everyone to see, look up, study, contemplate, etc.
And there are insane individuals. Presumably most, like the general population, watch television. It's a guarantee that is not pleasant to think about -- but seemingly a fact nonetheless.
So, be careful. It's not overdoing it to have some type of security guard. It's not overdoing it to make sure that you're safe, to have protection, to have security systems for your home, to have people looking out for you, to have people around you. But, is that life one you are willing to live? Pressly's murder, I'm sure, made lots of people think about what is truly important.
On one hand, fear, in general, ought not to deeply affect a person's true aspirations and her mission to do good in the world and to deliver news to a mass audience of people. And she'd surely understand that the odds of something seriously bad happening are slim in general. But there are brutal realities, and if you look good and put yourself on television on a consistent basis, you will get stalked at some point.
It's best to figure out if that fact can be accepted -- and then if appropriate steps will be taken to try to not interfere with your life but to still protect you. The world's not fair.
But your life is too important.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
It's good to understand
Are journalists and general readers of newspapers really that different? Does the average person hate the gatekeeper?
Where is the appreciation for journalists, and why don't journalists care more for the common reader?
The ombudswoman for the Washington Post sets out to try to figure out the tensions between viewers of the media and media members themselves. The ombudswoman, Deborah Howell, makes extremely important and insightful points, as society still has a long way to go in terms of its maturation process. It's a shame that those who determine the news and who do the best they can in terms of delivering respectable content are generally disliked by the public.
All the hate affects the approach to different problems; that altered approach has an impact on news editing decisions, editorial decisions, and the effort put into a story.
Howell wrote, "Each reader comes with special needs and interests." And the implication is both good and bad. The good is that it's certainly positive to be able to think outside the box independently; a healthy mind -- especially in relation to media content -- leads to healthy discussion and a flourishing democracy full of ideas and innovation. But the unfortunate implication of the observation has to do with cynicism. People -- readers -- are cynical; a lot of them, and seemingly with a greater and greater frequency. With so much anger, sometimes journalists are unfairly not given a chance.
The flared passions give journalists and editors a very small window to properly tell a story the way he or she would want to. And not being able to edit or write naturally due to fears about the reaction of the readership takes away from some of what makes journalism great and useful in the first place: that the people involved with the media content are coming up with the best ideas at the time, as those ideas will have a possible noble effect on society.
But when a person looks harshly through the lenses of just his or her realm, then a story cannot be seen for what it is. And that fact is a major problem. In this day an age, we need solutions, not more problems. Skepticism is ok; outright cynicism is not.
Importantly, however, editors and writers need to have a thicker skin. With rabid response available in today's media, readers will make their feelings known -- and known loudly. If a journalist is able to take instant criticism, -- even if it's very harsh -- then that maturity usually goes a long way. Emotions about self-loathing shouldn't get mixed up with fact versus anything that doesn't meet the standard of fact. The disconnect between media members and society truly hurts journalism, but a fix is possible.
It's important to consider common humanity. Especially in today's scary times, we need to be in this together. Yet also, having some kind of disconnect is ok because journalists have to be ready at a moment's notice to potentially say something damaging to a person he or she cares about or who he or she has covered in a beat for years and years because journalism is not about selfishness and making friends -- but about accountability, truth, trust, and doing what is right. Ironically, if people believed the aforementioned were truly the case, journalism would be psychologically in healthier shape than it is today.
After talking about bias and self-righteousness regarding readers and journalists, Howell then wrote, "But then along comes a financial crisis, and where besides major newspapers and their Web sites can readers get authoritative coverage of what is engulfing us?" When push comes to shove, the public needs journalism because who will lookout for truth? Who will hold people accountable and hold their feet to the fire? Newspaper writers, journalists in general, etc.
It's important to note that the haste and hateful feelings between media and non media need to calm down because one cannot think clearly and in a fully rational manner if there is such unnecessary anger pent up inside. Journalists work very, very, very hard -- and most work honorably. And most individuals who are not journalists work very tirelessly and diligently and deserve some empathy. With the Internet being used more and more, it's much easier to express anger and to write viral comments to one another as opposed to picking up a telephone or speaking to someone face to face. So, maybe the issue between viewers and journalists has been mighty similar all along.
But regardless, it's important for communication to be readily possible between journalists and the ones who follow the stories because communication and understanding are ways to solve problems and ways to create a sense of trust. Readers will feel like the writer truly does have empathy for a situation, and journalists will understand where others are coming from.
Understanding makes all the difference in the world; understanding is a good start to anything.
Where is the appreciation for journalists, and why don't journalists care more for the common reader?
The ombudswoman for the Washington Post sets out to try to figure out the tensions between viewers of the media and media members themselves. The ombudswoman, Deborah Howell, makes extremely important and insightful points, as society still has a long way to go in terms of its maturation process. It's a shame that those who determine the news and who do the best they can in terms of delivering respectable content are generally disliked by the public.
All the hate affects the approach to different problems; that altered approach has an impact on news editing decisions, editorial decisions, and the effort put into a story.
Howell wrote, "Each reader comes with special needs and interests." And the implication is both good and bad. The good is that it's certainly positive to be able to think outside the box independently; a healthy mind -- especially in relation to media content -- leads to healthy discussion and a flourishing democracy full of ideas and innovation. But the unfortunate implication of the observation has to do with cynicism. People -- readers -- are cynical; a lot of them, and seemingly with a greater and greater frequency. With so much anger, sometimes journalists are unfairly not given a chance.
The flared passions give journalists and editors a very small window to properly tell a story the way he or she would want to. And not being able to edit or write naturally due to fears about the reaction of the readership takes away from some of what makes journalism great and useful in the first place: that the people involved with the media content are coming up with the best ideas at the time, as those ideas will have a possible noble effect on society.
But when a person looks harshly through the lenses of just his or her realm, then a story cannot be seen for what it is. And that fact is a major problem. In this day an age, we need solutions, not more problems. Skepticism is ok; outright cynicism is not.
Importantly, however, editors and writers need to have a thicker skin. With rabid response available in today's media, readers will make their feelings known -- and known loudly. If a journalist is able to take instant criticism, -- even if it's very harsh -- then that maturity usually goes a long way. Emotions about self-loathing shouldn't get mixed up with fact versus anything that doesn't meet the standard of fact. The disconnect between media members and society truly hurts journalism, but a fix is possible.
It's important to consider common humanity. Especially in today's scary times, we need to be in this together. Yet also, having some kind of disconnect is ok because journalists have to be ready at a moment's notice to potentially say something damaging to a person he or she cares about or who he or she has covered in a beat for years and years because journalism is not about selfishness and making friends -- but about accountability, truth, trust, and doing what is right. Ironically, if people believed the aforementioned were truly the case, journalism would be psychologically in healthier shape than it is today.
After talking about bias and self-righteousness regarding readers and journalists, Howell then wrote, "But then along comes a financial crisis, and where besides major newspapers and their Web sites can readers get authoritative coverage of what is engulfing us?" When push comes to shove, the public needs journalism because who will lookout for truth? Who will hold people accountable and hold their feet to the fire? Newspaper writers, journalists in general, etc.
It's important to note that the haste and hateful feelings between media and non media need to calm down because one cannot think clearly and in a fully rational manner if there is such unnecessary anger pent up inside. Journalists work very, very, very hard -- and most work honorably. And most individuals who are not journalists work very tirelessly and diligently and deserve some empathy. With the Internet being used more and more, it's much easier to express anger and to write viral comments to one another as opposed to picking up a telephone or speaking to someone face to face. So, maybe the issue between viewers and journalists has been mighty similar all along.
But regardless, it's important for communication to be readily possible between journalists and the ones who follow the stories because communication and understanding are ways to solve problems and ways to create a sense of trust. Readers will feel like the writer truly does have empathy for a situation, and journalists will understand where others are coming from.
Understanding makes all the difference in the world; understanding is a good start to anything.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Remember
Just a week ago, my class blogged about editorial decisions regarding whether it's appropriate or not appropriate to publish certain photographs (pretending to put ourselves in the situations that arise for gatekeepers).
But that type of filtering occurs naturally when stories are chosen every day, too. And to be blunt, something needs to be pointed out. What is being under reported -- and maybe what has always been under reported -- is the "war" in Iraq ("war" is in quotations because the occupation is technically not a war, but it might as well be considered a war based upon all the deaths).
How many personal stories of the 4,181 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice do you really know? How many of their names do you know? How are their families being helped? Has there been a truthful explanation as to why the deceased were put into harm's way in the first place? Is there any accountability?
The point is that, ironically, even when it was popular to report on the war in Iraq (now it is not; it's all about the silly season of politics and the economy), it was still not being reported on correctly and definitely not reported on appropriately. Each life should matter; each life should count. People only live one life.
A newspaper ought to care. More soldiers died a few years ago per day, per month, and per year than the rate going on now (thus far, five U.S. soldiers have died in October of 2008), but has there been a nationalized profile on any of the recent deaths? Do people know about the 25 departed American lives from September of 2008? Are the deaths in vain because we do not know they're occurring since they're not on the front pages?
Seriously, the editorial decisions are embarrassing. It's embarrassing to still have people dying without a true, solid explanation as to why we are in Iraq in the first place (pretty much all the initial reasons turned out to be unfortunately not based on reliable information). Individuals matter. The United States is about quality, not quantity. American heroes have names, faces, families. They all deserve the thought we'd give to pictures, money, and commas -- and obviously much, much more. It's important for us to think about whether to publish pictures and how to best edit this great language of ours, but it's also important to be making decisions that indicate we care about those dying for us.
Even if other events are more popular, such as writing about Wall Street executives losing their gold watches or contemplating the importance of Barack Obama or John McCain being up or down by a point or two in some poll, we still cannot forget what the current reality is for brave Americans. But see, even at the height of the reporting for this war, people did not focus on what mattered. There was little specific reporting on the literal lives and deaths of far too many Americans.
What about the terror someone might have and surely has gone through as he or she was in sheer pain and about to die? What about his or her family? How is the family affected financially? Was there a profile done on the most recent American that was killed in Iraq? Who was the most recent American killed in Iraq? I certainly haven't heard about him or her.
With editorial decisions, reporters are filtering out the lives of individuals who deserve just the opposite. If the news media do not care, then neither will anybody else. When people are fighting and dying, the approach to reporting and investigating and caring must be appropriate and honorable -- which has not been the case for a long, long time, if ever.
But that type of filtering occurs naturally when stories are chosen every day, too. And to be blunt, something needs to be pointed out. What is being under reported -- and maybe what has always been under reported -- is the "war" in Iraq ("war" is in quotations because the occupation is technically not a war, but it might as well be considered a war based upon all the deaths).
How many personal stories of the 4,181 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice do you really know? How many of their names do you know? How are their families being helped? Has there been a truthful explanation as to why the deceased were put into harm's way in the first place? Is there any accountability?
The point is that, ironically, even when it was popular to report on the war in Iraq (now it is not; it's all about the silly season of politics and the economy), it was still not being reported on correctly and definitely not reported on appropriately. Each life should matter; each life should count. People only live one life.
A newspaper ought to care. More soldiers died a few years ago per day, per month, and per year than the rate going on now (thus far, five U.S. soldiers have died in October of 2008), but has there been a nationalized profile on any of the recent deaths? Do people know about the 25 departed American lives from September of 2008? Are the deaths in vain because we do not know they're occurring since they're not on the front pages?
Seriously, the editorial decisions are embarrassing. It's embarrassing to still have people dying without a true, solid explanation as to why we are in Iraq in the first place (pretty much all the initial reasons turned out to be unfortunately not based on reliable information). Individuals matter. The United States is about quality, not quantity. American heroes have names, faces, families. They all deserve the thought we'd give to pictures, money, and commas -- and obviously much, much more. It's important for us to think about whether to publish pictures and how to best edit this great language of ours, but it's also important to be making decisions that indicate we care about those dying for us.
Even if other events are more popular, such as writing about Wall Street executives losing their gold watches or contemplating the importance of Barack Obama or John McCain being up or down by a point or two in some poll, we still cannot forget what the current reality is for brave Americans. But see, even at the height of the reporting for this war, people did not focus on what mattered. There was little specific reporting on the literal lives and deaths of far too many Americans.
What about the terror someone might have and surely has gone through as he or she was in sheer pain and about to die? What about his or her family? How is the family affected financially? Was there a profile done on the most recent American that was killed in Iraq? Who was the most recent American killed in Iraq? I certainly haven't heard about him or her.
With editorial decisions, reporters are filtering out the lives of individuals who deserve just the opposite. If the news media do not care, then neither will anybody else. When people are fighting and dying, the approach to reporting and investigating and caring must be appropriate and honorable -- which has not been the case for a long, long time, if ever.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Emotional photographs
For a news editing course, my classmates and I were shown pictures, and we were asked to decide, among other ethical questions (you folks will quickly figure out the other questions posed), whether we'd run the pictures in a publication -- or whether we would find it unethical to do so.
Something to keep in mind is emotion. Emotion is powerful. Emotion is power. Emotion is forceful. Emotion drives society. But what needs to be the underlying factor is reason. An image might be powerful, but is it worth disgust and embarrassment? Is it worth making others who are grieving uncomfortable? David Hume, one of the best philosophers who ever lived, famously wrote, "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." This statement is controversial and many disagree, but the compelling point is that when one has certain emotions, reason is often thrown out the door. Media has such an enormous impact on the lives of others, so reason, judgment, and responsibility must be factors in a person's decision making.
For those eligible to view UIUC Compass, the link with the photos is here.
The first snapshot is one of a a distressed boy with his left hand resting on his dead dog. The dog and the boy are central to the image, and the dog was killed by a car. The main ethical dilemma surrounds the boy himself. Because he is young, it would be inappropriate to run a story and photograph with him in it without the family's permission. It would be an image that would be etched into history -- because of technology nowadays -- and permission must be granted.
To note, the dog being dead itself would not affect my decision to run the photograph. As long as the photo isn't too graphic itself, this one is fine to run. It's not graphic. I would hope that the family would agree to let the photo run if there a story came with it regarding the dangers of dogs on the road. Far too many are killed. To be clear, because it passes the "graphic" test, the family would need to grant permission because there is a little boy involved, but in no way does this photograph embarrass the boy or put him in a negative light. The criterion has to do with permission. With the aforementioned limits set, I would run this picture under any circumstance.
My decision would not be different if the event was local, as long as I was granted permission by the boy's parents or guardians. This decision includes any type of publication because it does not strike me as an image that would make a person too uncomfortable. But I sure bet the photo, with the accompanying story, would make drivers more aware of dogs escaping and running on the road.
The next photograph is one in which a rescue worker tries to console the family of a boy who has just drowned in a lake. It would be very difficult to run this photograph in a print edition, but there are still circumstances that would let me run it. Just like the last mentioned photo, the picture brings out sadness and most certainly empathy. The facial reactions tell all an individual needs to know; the image would definitely bring a different element to the horrible news.
Of course, this photo can only be shown if this condition is met: The family members agree the image of sadness can be shown. I bet more people would consent than a person would predict. It would be extremely difficult to ask the family permission in the first place, but if a person is too shy to sometimes do what is very difficult, then that person should not be a journalist. The image itself is sad, but it is not inappropriate for readers to see because there is nothing offensive, obscene, disrespectful (if consent is given), etc. I would be uncomfortable not running this if permission was granted. People have a right to see pictures because they are part of the way we receive information. To be clear, this photograph cannot be run without permission, but it most certainly can be run with the permission.
The next picture is of Bud Dwyer, former state treasurer of Pennsylvania, killing himself at a press conference. He was convicted of misusing state funds.
I would not use this photograph under any circumstance. The blood, gore, and scary facial shot make me squeamish, and the elements of the photograph are too extreme for a mass audience that trusts it isn't going to see R rated material and beyond. It's one thing to show death or facial reactions, but it's another to show a suicide as it has happened. Different mediums, such as blogs, documentaries that warn about images ahead of time, and other places would be able to show the photo, but it would be respectful to never show this photograph. Description is enough. Though, the "where or how" actually makes a difference because the Internet is a whole different beast. It is already a place known for objectionable material, and one knows the risks associated with it. Newspapers hold themselves to higher standards, and that trust cannot be broken. The shock with the suicide image is too much to bear.
I would simply choose not to show the dead employee (this now is a new photograph), and this decision is more or less based on my intuition. The dead employee was shot with an AK-47 assault rifle. The murderer killed seven, wounded 13, and subsequently ended his own life. As I explained earlier, I would not have a problem showing the dead, but this employee is sprawled out on the ground, on his back with his arms stretched, his stomach showing, his head leaned back, and the appearance of scattered blood. This photograph is graphic and violent and is simply inappropriate for a newspaper, whether it's local or national. Discretion must win out with this photograph.
See, there's a trust readers put into their print editions of news. They do expect that reporters do all they can do get them the most information possible. But they expect to be able to keep their breakfasts in their stomachs. This photograph crosses the line in terms of publication because nothing is truly gained by slapping this photograph in the story, but a lot can be lost. Just losing respect is not most important; upsetting the victim's family is most important in this case. We are talking about life. The person who was murdered is gone forever. His family members are just beginning to grasp reality, and the image is ugly and one that ought not to be in their minds for the rest of their lives. This is a case when an editor, or the one who makes the call, needs to have empathy himself or herself because without trying to imagine how someone close would feel means that the correct decision cannot be made. The viewers are important, too. Readers shouldn't be grossed out by a newspaper, so this picture must not be published.
The next photograph sickens me. A 15-year-old boy was climbing a fence, and he fell. The picture is of the fence through (yes, THROUGH) his neck and out of his mouth, as the corner of the right side of his mouth is stretched. The boy's head is tilted to his left, and his eyes are rolled to his left. A section of the fence needed to be cut off by rescue workers. The boy survived.
If this picture was shown in my department of the newspaper or magazine, I would resign. This picture makes you avert your eyes and wince and breathe in fast in a way that can't benefit your health too much. The thought of a fence going through my face is unbearable, and for the rest of my life I'd like to not see such an image. To be fair, after the initial reaction is taken into consideration, reason must be fully applied. But for this picture, it's okay for reason to be the slave of whatever type of emotion Hume referred to. There is zero value in adding this photograph. How would you feel if you were the 15-year-old boy? How would you feel if you opened up your newspaper to that image? The criteria have to do with the implication of the effects of the photograph -- and what an image can do to a mind. Many would not be able to stomach such an image, unlike the first two I referred to. The truth of the decision lies within the comfort level for those who view it, and the person making the decision must use his own reaction and gauge what others would think. But some pictures cross the line and do not make a decision very difficult, and this picture is one of them.
The last picture was taken in a fire escape, as the photograph is above a riot during a Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle. The woman -- the main feature of the photograph -- is being held up in the air against her will with nothing on but underwear. Both breasts are being groped, and at least two hands are close to or on her private area. Her face was obscured to protect her identity.
This photo cannot be run because of nudity. Also, too much skin is showing. Also, the men are being disrespectful to the extreme and all should be prosecuted, but the embarrassment factor to society needs to be considered. What it comes down to is the fact that the image is too inappropriate to show.
What can be done (if there is close to a 100 percent chance of guaranteeing no one will be able to figure out the identity of the woman in the photograph) is to have the image shown on certain respected blogs that people trust but ones that people know push the envelope. Because this way, the men can be held accountable in a public and humiliating way, but the image isn't on paper itself to an audience that oftentimes expects the images to be G or PG rated. The type of medium used for publication makes a difference, but my conviction is to not show this photograph because it is unfair to the victim (the most important factor) and shows too much skin in a negative, despicable way ... and the image is a disgrace to society.
The photograph I had the toughest time deciding which way to go is the image of the family grieving over the death of the boy, who was a son and a brother. The reason is because there are an inordinate amount of images where grieving is shown. The images of faces saddened and reddened are part of humanity and shows how much and how passionately people care for one another. Those aspects should not be forgotten in a society where not enough caring occurs all too often. But the issue is that the news was recent, and the boy died -- and the family deserves space. Plus, one boy being consoled looks extraordinarily upset, as he looks like he can rip his own face off with his right hand. His mouth is stretched in an "O" of despair. The feeling might be too much to bear, and it might be inappropriate in the first place to ask the family if that photo can be used. But I ultimately decide that the picture passes decency standards. It passes because the image itself isn't graphic or inappropriate in terms of what is acceptable to a general public. So the only thing left is to seek permission from the family, and if permission is granted, then that is that.
It's important to not be a drone or emotionless when making these decisions. But a person who makes the decision regarding publication of these photographs can't be too caught up in his or her emotions, either. The initial intuition must be used as a guide, and then the consequences of publication must be taken into consideration (the subjects of the photos, the readership at large). My criteria have to do with what is appropriate, the context of the situation, and what is right based on critical thinking.
The point is to care. Once a picture is out there, then it is out there and cannot be taken back. Whether the correct or incorrect decision was made, the least a person who makes the ultimate call can do is care.
Something to keep in mind is emotion. Emotion is powerful. Emotion is power. Emotion is forceful. Emotion drives society. But what needs to be the underlying factor is reason. An image might be powerful, but is it worth disgust and embarrassment? Is it worth making others who are grieving uncomfortable? David Hume, one of the best philosophers who ever lived, famously wrote, "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." This statement is controversial and many disagree, but the compelling point is that when one has certain emotions, reason is often thrown out the door. Media has such an enormous impact on the lives of others, so reason, judgment, and responsibility must be factors in a person's decision making.
For those eligible to view UIUC Compass, the link with the photos is here.
The first snapshot is one of a a distressed boy with his left hand resting on his dead dog. The dog and the boy are central to the image, and the dog was killed by a car. The main ethical dilemma surrounds the boy himself. Because he is young, it would be inappropriate to run a story and photograph with him in it without the family's permission. It would be an image that would be etched into history -- because of technology nowadays -- and permission must be granted.
To note, the dog being dead itself would not affect my decision to run the photograph. As long as the photo isn't too graphic itself, this one is fine to run. It's not graphic. I would hope that the family would agree to let the photo run if there a story came with it regarding the dangers of dogs on the road. Far too many are killed. To be clear, because it passes the "graphic" test, the family would need to grant permission because there is a little boy involved, but in no way does this photograph embarrass the boy or put him in a negative light. The criterion has to do with permission. With the aforementioned limits set, I would run this picture under any circumstance.
My decision would not be different if the event was local, as long as I was granted permission by the boy's parents or guardians. This decision includes any type of publication because it does not strike me as an image that would make a person too uncomfortable. But I sure bet the photo, with the accompanying story, would make drivers more aware of dogs escaping and running on the road.
The next photograph is one in which a rescue worker tries to console the family of a boy who has just drowned in a lake. It would be very difficult to run this photograph in a print edition, but there are still circumstances that would let me run it. Just like the last mentioned photo, the picture brings out sadness and most certainly empathy. The facial reactions tell all an individual needs to know; the image would definitely bring a different element to the horrible news.
Of course, this photo can only be shown if this condition is met: The family members agree the image of sadness can be shown. I bet more people would consent than a person would predict. It would be extremely difficult to ask the family permission in the first place, but if a person is too shy to sometimes do what is very difficult, then that person should not be a journalist. The image itself is sad, but it is not inappropriate for readers to see because there is nothing offensive, obscene, disrespectful (if consent is given), etc. I would be uncomfortable not running this if permission was granted. People have a right to see pictures because they are part of the way we receive information. To be clear, this photograph cannot be run without permission, but it most certainly can be run with the permission.
The next picture is of Bud Dwyer, former state treasurer of Pennsylvania, killing himself at a press conference. He was convicted of misusing state funds.
I would not use this photograph under any circumstance. The blood, gore, and scary facial shot make me squeamish, and the elements of the photograph are too extreme for a mass audience that trusts it isn't going to see R rated material and beyond. It's one thing to show death or facial reactions, but it's another to show a suicide as it has happened. Different mediums, such as blogs, documentaries that warn about images ahead of time, and other places would be able to show the photo, but it would be respectful to never show this photograph. Description is enough. Though, the "where or how" actually makes a difference because the Internet is a whole different beast. It is already a place known for objectionable material, and one knows the risks associated with it. Newspapers hold themselves to higher standards, and that trust cannot be broken. The shock with the suicide image is too much to bear.
I would simply choose not to show the dead employee (this now is a new photograph), and this decision is more or less based on my intuition. The dead employee was shot with an AK-47 assault rifle. The murderer killed seven, wounded 13, and subsequently ended his own life. As I explained earlier, I would not have a problem showing the dead, but this employee is sprawled out on the ground, on his back with his arms stretched, his stomach showing, his head leaned back, and the appearance of scattered blood. This photograph is graphic and violent and is simply inappropriate for a newspaper, whether it's local or national. Discretion must win out with this photograph.
See, there's a trust readers put into their print editions of news. They do expect that reporters do all they can do get them the most information possible. But they expect to be able to keep their breakfasts in their stomachs. This photograph crosses the line in terms of publication because nothing is truly gained by slapping this photograph in the story, but a lot can be lost. Just losing respect is not most important; upsetting the victim's family is most important in this case. We are talking about life. The person who was murdered is gone forever. His family members are just beginning to grasp reality, and the image is ugly and one that ought not to be in their minds for the rest of their lives. This is a case when an editor, or the one who makes the call, needs to have empathy himself or herself because without trying to imagine how someone close would feel means that the correct decision cannot be made. The viewers are important, too. Readers shouldn't be grossed out by a newspaper, so this picture must not be published.
The next photograph sickens me. A 15-year-old boy was climbing a fence, and he fell. The picture is of the fence through (yes, THROUGH) his neck and out of his mouth, as the corner of the right side of his mouth is stretched. The boy's head is tilted to his left, and his eyes are rolled to his left. A section of the fence needed to be cut off by rescue workers. The boy survived.
If this picture was shown in my department of the newspaper or magazine, I would resign. This picture makes you avert your eyes and wince and breathe in fast in a way that can't benefit your health too much. The thought of a fence going through my face is unbearable, and for the rest of my life I'd like to not see such an image. To be fair, after the initial reaction is taken into consideration, reason must be fully applied. But for this picture, it's okay for reason to be the slave of whatever type of emotion Hume referred to. There is zero value in adding this photograph. How would you feel if you were the 15-year-old boy? How would you feel if you opened up your newspaper to that image? The criteria have to do with the implication of the effects of the photograph -- and what an image can do to a mind. Many would not be able to stomach such an image, unlike the first two I referred to. The truth of the decision lies within the comfort level for those who view it, and the person making the decision must use his own reaction and gauge what others would think. But some pictures cross the line and do not make a decision very difficult, and this picture is one of them.
The last picture was taken in a fire escape, as the photograph is above a riot during a Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle. The woman -- the main feature of the photograph -- is being held up in the air against her will with nothing on but underwear. Both breasts are being groped, and at least two hands are close to or on her private area. Her face was obscured to protect her identity.
This photo cannot be run because of nudity. Also, too much skin is showing. Also, the men are being disrespectful to the extreme and all should be prosecuted, but the embarrassment factor to society needs to be considered. What it comes down to is the fact that the image is too inappropriate to show.
What can be done (if there is close to a 100 percent chance of guaranteeing no one will be able to figure out the identity of the woman in the photograph) is to have the image shown on certain respected blogs that people trust but ones that people know push the envelope. Because this way, the men can be held accountable in a public and humiliating way, but the image isn't on paper itself to an audience that oftentimes expects the images to be G or PG rated. The type of medium used for publication makes a difference, but my conviction is to not show this photograph because it is unfair to the victim (the most important factor) and shows too much skin in a negative, despicable way ... and the image is a disgrace to society.
The photograph I had the toughest time deciding which way to go is the image of the family grieving over the death of the boy, who was a son and a brother. The reason is because there are an inordinate amount of images where grieving is shown. The images of faces saddened and reddened are part of humanity and shows how much and how passionately people care for one another. Those aspects should not be forgotten in a society where not enough caring occurs all too often. But the issue is that the news was recent, and the boy died -- and the family deserves space. Plus, one boy being consoled looks extraordinarily upset, as he looks like he can rip his own face off with his right hand. His mouth is stretched in an "O" of despair. The feeling might be too much to bear, and it might be inappropriate in the first place to ask the family if that photo can be used. But I ultimately decide that the picture passes decency standards. It passes because the image itself isn't graphic or inappropriate in terms of what is acceptable to a general public. So the only thing left is to seek permission from the family, and if permission is granted, then that is that.
It's important to not be a drone or emotionless when making these decisions. But a person who makes the decision regarding publication of these photographs can't be too caught up in his or her emotions, either. The initial intuition must be used as a guide, and then the consequences of publication must be taken into consideration (the subjects of the photos, the readership at large). My criteria have to do with what is appropriate, the context of the situation, and what is right based on critical thinking.
The point is to care. Once a picture is out there, then it is out there and cannot be taken back. Whether the correct or incorrect decision was made, the least a person who makes the ultimate call can do is care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)