Oh hi, photos

Just as a note on this post... I originally included in this post the photos that I am discussing, but had to take them down. So here's the post sans-photos...

A photo of a man committing suicide.

Your immediate thought is probably something like, what kind of illegal lengths would you have to go through to get that photo? Then your thoughts go to wondering how gruesome it is.

Rarely, if ever, do someone's thoughts go to whether it should be printed in a newspaper... until it is printed in a newspaper. Out of the four provided photos, the photo I've posted is the photo I would have run had I been an editor at the time. Why?

Honestly, while I'm considering this photo, I'm not worried about invading Dwyer's rights. He called a press conference, and willingly allowed photographers to take pictures of him killing himself. As horrid as that sounds, Dwyer knew what he was doing, and knew there would be photos. He obviously isn't concerned about what's in the paper.

My concern, however, is for the reader. Often, anyone can pick up a newspaper and start reading it. Everyone from the most hardened individual with ice water in his veins down to the squeemish 7-year-old. You don't want to offend any of your readers if it's not absolutely necessary, and it doesn't promote further discussion of a topic. The only thing that would come out of running the photo of Dywer with his gun in his mouth or of him an instant after pulling the trigger is the shock value. That's not worth offending your reader.

Would I publish the below photo?

Absolutely. Although it's a very sad photo, it's not violating and individual's right to privacy, especially since there's no dead human being in this photo. Most importantly, it's not offending any reader. Again, it's a very sad photo and maybe something you'd rather not see, but definitely not offensive. It shows emotion.


How about this one?



No I would not. One reason on this one. No. 1, and most importantly, some readers may find it offensive. Although the graphic content of this photo isn't as graphic as Dwyer killing himself, it's still very questionable. It's a tragic event, yes, but we shouldn't offend readers by showing the face of a dead boy.


If there were a version of this photo without the dead child's face in it, I probably would run it. In that case, it would be much like the dog photo: something you'd rather not see, but still very much filled with emotion, and most importantly, a story.


This one?



No. Again, I have a porblem with publishing the faces of dead people. Covered faces or cropped body parts are fine, as far as I'm concerned. But no faces.


Plus, this photo doesn't really tell me anything. I don't know how this woman died by looking at the photo. It's a warehouse filled with machines. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe she fell. This photo isn't sufficient to tell me that story. It's not worth the offensive nature.


This one?


Oh my god, yes. Run this photo immediately. The boy turned out to be fine. We have a big face shot, but that doesn't bother me in this case because he's not dead. It tells a story.


Yes, maybe it's nauseating to some readers, but I don't think it's offensive. And, I need to say it again: It tells a story. And a pretty cools story in my opinion. It's worth the nausea.


And finally... this one?

Absolutely not. Yes, it tells a story. But even with the victim's face blurred out, I feel it's a violation of her rights. Obviously, she didn't ask for this to happen. The fact that a photographer was above her was bad luck, and she shouldn't have to be subjected to that. I wouldn't print this photo for the same reason newspapers don't put victim's names in print.

Plus, it's offensive to the reader. No reader would want to see this.

There could be an argument to run this photo if instances like this were a problem at Mardi Gras this particular year. Then it tells a story and promotes further discussion. But if that's not the case, don't run the photo.

Leprechaun in Mobile?

I'll update this more later, but I just wanted to get this up now. Watch the clip, and think about your initial reactions. Feel free to post them as a comment. I'll explain more later.

...

Annnnd now I have more time.

I'm honestly a little confused about whether this "news story" is real. It appears on the news program for an NBC affiliate (although I'm not sure where), so I'd like to think it's an accurate report.

So assuming it's true, it still seems ridiculous. The most ridiculous part, I feel, is how this black community is portrayed. Every negative stereotype of black individuals that still exists in this country is projected in this report.

The whole reason why this news story became part of the news program, I imagine, is because of its comic factor. Of course no one watching the report believes that there is actually a leprechaun in this neighborhood, and the reporter doesn't try to convince anyone that there is (although if they had footage of the leprechaun, that would be real news). The basis of this news story is that there is an entire community that believes they've seen a leprechaun.

Maybe the community is in on this joke. I find it hard to believe that an entire community actually believes that they are seeing a leprechaun. But the reporter never makes an effort to say that the whole situation is a big joke. Using only the information provided to us in the report, we are led to believe that this community actually believes that they are seeing a leprechaun.

And furthermore, the negative stereotypes portrayed in this report seem to be accentuated for effect. The more ridiculous the interviewees seem, the more hilarious the report is. While that statement is true, it is not the proper way to think about news. A story, if it's being reported for its inherent hilarity, should not need embellishment to make it newsworthy.

This is a poor, poor attempt at a quirky news story by this station's reporter and its editors. A community is negatively portrayed, a story is embellished and the line between reality and a collective joke is never clearly drawn.

This story needs some work, if it's even a story at all.

Hamster kidnapper

So here's an epic fail, courtesy YouTube.

I was just thinking earlier today that with increasing technology, there's decreasing room for error. I have to imagine that this error was the result of a producer double-clicking the wrong picture to embed in the video feed.

A costly error, though.

This goes for a lot of things. You type an extra word into a print story, and it makes the story an extra line longer in the design program. All of a sudden, you see the page the next day, and the story seems like it doesn't end, because the design program chopped off that extra line. Oops.

Just be careful about the technical things.

Just to keep you interested...

Found this on CollegeHumor.com, a Web site that is 100 percent inappropriate for discussion in J420, but I thought it was funny.

See here's one of those editorial decisions I might second-guess. Why is the allowance of alcohol sales in the county bigger news than the first black president of the United States?

But then again, I don't live in Erath County.

After doing a little more research, I found that Erath County was one of 35 dry counties in Texas. The election results PDF was still posted on the county's home page, and John McCain won the popular vote by nearly 60 percent. So basically, a pretty conservative part of town.

The last time the county had tried to repeal prohibition was 26 years prior, and it lost by a wide margin.

I could only find one online story about the campaign to allow the sale of alcohol in the county, but it was very debated petition at the time.

So I guess this was pretty big news at the time, but I also have to assume that this is a conservative newspaper unwilling to play up Obama's victory... I mean, look at the graphic above the nameplate.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt though... maybe through their eyes and the eyes of their readers, the sales of alcohol was the bigger news on Nov. 5, 2008.

So what's the point?

So following up on that last post I made...

I realized that naming this blog was the first editorial decision I made as far as this blog is concerned. And, keeping with the theme of this blog (which I'll explain later), I'm second-guessing myself.

I originally titled it "We'll see about that..." because that was the first thing I blurted out when a classmate suggested a blog name to me. I thought it was just non-descriptive enough to avoid any silent judgement from the rest of my classmates.

But then when I came back tonight to make my post in accordance with the J420 syllabus, I realized I'm an idiot. A title should reflect what the blog is about, not to avoid silent judgement. But there are other factors that go in to that decision, too. For one, it should include Google-able words, if you ever want anyone to see it. I think I did a pretty good job there.

It should also tell people what the point of the blog is... you get it, right?

So please look at the name of your blog... think real hard about it. It might be the most important editorial decision you make as far as your own blog is concerned. Isn't second-guessing fun? You'll be doing it a lot this semester if you're a J420 student.

The theme of this blog will be calling into question editorial decisions from around the country. The way I envision it, some will be humorous, and others pathetic. All of them, however, will be debatable. As much as we journalists like to believe we're objective all the time, we make subjective decisions without even thinking about them. Hundreds every day.

So... let the second guessing begin.