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.