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.