Truth hurts. And having to choose, pains me.

My editing class was given a simple assignment: review a series of graphic and emotive photos. Our difficult task: decide which we would publish.

Two ethical tenets spring to mind when I am faced with making a decision about which photos to publish. A journalist should seek truth and report it. A journalist should also minimize harm.

I think two important questions to consider within the above guidelines are:

Why shouldn't I publish the photo?

Why should I?

The first four photos unveil the 1987 suicide of Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer.

Out of the four I would publish either No. 2 or No. 3. I would not pick Nos. 1 or 4 because, to me, they do not tell the whole story. The first photo does not show what he is about to do with the gun. The fourth has great emotion but one can not tell what really happened just by looking at it. Also, the suicide of a family member is a sensitive issue. If I were related to Mr. Dwyer, I might not enjoy looking at that photo.

But, keeping with that same logic, No. 3 is a bit graphic. People close to this man might feel extremely uncomfortable seeing him, in a published photo, with a gun in his mouth. But, his suicide happened and that picture shows it. My gut tells me, though, that to minimize harm to go with No. 2. I think No. 2 is the safest while telling the most.

The next photo shows a boy grieving for his dog.

I feel it is fair to publish this photo. I realize the dog has sentimental value, but I don't see its death to be as monumental as that of a person. I don't think the boy would be harmed if I published this photo.

The following photo is a bit tricky.

It shows great agony and even shows the body of the boy who has died. At first, I thought I would have no problem publishing it. But it involves the death of a child, a premature passing of a loved-one, and it displays all of the hurt the family is experiencing. I think I might ask the family if they would be comfortable if this photo was published. I would then use their answer as a factor in my decision.

I know that at a funeral the family decides whether to have an open or closed casket. The casket is wide open, in this case, for the world to see. It is very intrusive. However, it is in a public place and can be used to educate people about the dangers of swimming and the importance of keeping an eye on kids in those situations. The mother might actually feel better if the photo was used in this way, as a tool for educating others. This photo can result in good consequences. If used in that way, I say, publish it.

Would I publish the next photo: a man on the floor of a printing plant, sprawled out dead?

Well, I can't see his face. I can't tell if that is blood splattered around his body. His position on the floor is very dramatic, unattractive.

Why publish it? It illustrates a very horrible event, one in which even the killer killed numerous people and himself. It doesn't happen everyday.

Why not publish it? Like the other photos involving death, the family might have an issue with it. The unflattering photo is perhaps a bit disrespectful to the deceased man. I don't know if I see a greater purpose for publishing this photo.

Sure, the photo paints a real picture but what will be the end result? Will Congress be moved to pass laws that ensure greater worker safety? Will the plant heighten security? Would the story alone influence action or is the photo necessary? I'm not sure.

In the next photo, protruding up from a boy's mouth is a fence spike.

When I show others this photo, they gasp. This photo should deter anyone from playing on spike fences. On the whole, I don't see this photo as harmful. The boy in the photo lived. Although he might be embarrassed by it, he did induce his injury. Publish it.

The last photo is easy for me.

The woman in the photo was sexually harassed. Even though you cannot see her face, she has to live with this abuse for the rest of her life. My initial reaction is not to publish it.

However, the photo is definitely newsworthy and I could see how it might move people to take action, and they should. Before considering publication I would ask the woman how she felt about it and do what she says. If she said yes then I would consider how this photo might influence the broader society. It is very explicit and perhaps a bit obscene, so I don't know if it is morally decent to show this type of action. But it sheds light on a repulsive act that needs to be dealt with.

OK, so I thought I knew where I stood, but now I don't know. Do people have a right not to see half-naked bodies in the news? I don't want to see it. It makes me a bit upset in this case. But should it be shown? Should people see what goes on at this event? Will it deter them or influence them to act this way behind the scenes? I don't know.

Editing in stereo: editing out stereotypes

How can we avoid overediting, echoing stories that sound like stereotypes?

“When I was in college, I could see signs that said ’white’ and ‘colored’ when I went to the movie theater. That was an easy target for me to aim at,” says Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP board. “Today, I don’t see those signs, but I know that these divisions still exist.”

This quote is from an Associated Press story the DI ran Thursday. After reading the whole story I was a bit disappointed.

Sure, Bond says divisions still exist, but no where in the article does it state what those divisions are. And it’s ironic because one of the points of the article is to show that the NAACP is working on convincing people discrimination still exists. However, the article fails to include the part that would do the convincing.

In fact, I could see how people reading this story might easily be unconvinced and think this Bond lady is just an ungrateful black woman who has nothing better to do than complain. (Haha, who's posting this blog?)

Interestingly, I could not find the article online at the DI’s Web site, but I found a longer version on the Pennsylvania Times Herald’s Web site: http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2009/02/12/news/doc4993c6dccfcdc739983360.txt

Here’s a passage paraphrasing the CEO of the NAACP from the Herald’s story that the DI cut from its story:

He cites figures such as a 70 percent unsolved murder rate in some black communities, blacks graduating from high school at a far lower rate than whites, and studies showing that whites with criminal records get jobs easier than blacks with clean histories.

When I read the DI story I wanted the quotes to be backed up. Now I see that they were but someone made a decision to cut it from the story.

It would be helpful if the information included in the Herald’s story was also backed up by reliable statistics instead of coming from another person, but it’s getting there. Still, to make a story credible, fair shouldn’t we spend the extra time finding those numbers, making sure they are accurate or not? And then, why not keep going? Why are those numbers important? What do people think about them? Let's talk to people who are unconvinced and see why.

Anyway, I know things like limited space may leave unanswered questions, but I think it is important to make sure one is sensitive to how the information we’ve decided to include will come across.

Since I’m very passionate about race relations and my mission is to use journalism to bring people together, perhaps I see these things more. Still, I am very sensitive to how all sides perceive things and I think that what we can learn from this story is worthwhile.

Consequently, I think we should be conscious of how we portray minorities’ issues. We need to show why they are relevant, why people should care. (To me it’s clear why they are relevant, since I know resolving or at least reporting on issues that divide us will result in greater harmony, but I digress.)

I just think that when we’re editing we need to make sure we don’t edit in or out information that implicitly reinforces stereotypes, leaving in part of the story, when the other part(s) may be necessary for the issue to sink in. I know it’s hard with pressing deadlines and limited space, but for the fairness’ sake we must try harder.

Third ... or fourth or fifth "like's" (not) the charm

So, like, I was sitting in my Leisure and Consumer Culture class the other day when the flashback hit.

There was a kid trying to explain his point of view to the teacher about something or other. The reason I don't remember his point is because the "like" he used every other time he spoke, overshadowed his comments. "Well, it's like, because of, like ..." I mean, he must've said it, like, 10 times in 30 seconds.

And I couldn't blame the kid because I know I do the same thing. When I don't know what to say or I'm really fired up, I often insert a "like" here or there ... OK everywhere. I don't know why many of us use this subordinating conjunction as a predicate adjective (I think) but, like, we do.

And it's funny, because I never thought I would get in trouble for it. Two semesters ago, in Professor Leon Dash's Reporting II class, I was singled out for my loose use of the word. He told me that if I ever wanted to portray myself as a qualified candidate for a job, I must talk more professionally. He probably said something about my mom not approving, and something like even when I talk to my friends I must make an effort to talk better ... but whatever.

Oh, and of course, guess what happened? About 10 months later (last week), I was talking to a close friend of mine. Again, I can't remember what I was trying to say, but I know I was really trying hard to say something. Of course, he so poignantly points out my flawed speech pattern and laughs. Disgraceful. I just can't leave "like" alone.

Why is it, though, that when we write we do not use (or, abuse) "like" in the same neurotic fashion as when we speak? Perhaps we know to be more professional when we write. Perhaps we feel less on-the-spot and so we don't lose consciousness as easily when we write. Still, we make a lot of other grammatical mistakes in our writing too.

I think we should learn how to be more conscious when we do both. And this class thrusts grammar to the forefront of my consciousness. (Did you like that active verb?) You know, before I took this class I never used to feel a sense of gratification for consciously strengthening my verbs. I never used to mosey from class daydreaming about grammar. But, it's possible that striving to think gramatically better and speak gramatically better, might just help us become better writers.

I think we also just need to relax. It's just, like, when we have something to say, we should just, like, say it without getting all, like, flustered and stuff.
___
Check out this article on the consequences of damaging filler words and how to overcome them. I think I have a problem.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Damaging-Verbal-Filler-Words-Repairing-Your-Speech&id=1759558

Oh, and this video might help too, although I was a little offended. http://www.ehow.com/video_4403285_conversational-speeches-filler-words.html

Grammar exercise

Everyone needs grammar exercise! Enjoy.

http://users.telenet.be/oldlark2002/GRAMMAR/GERUND-INFINITIVE-PRESENT-PARTICIPLE-1-.htm

Going back to grammar school

Using the verbs on today's homework (rush, drive, settle, lose, complete, reduce, fund, dream and restructure), and changing them into verbals, I will describe my painful experience so far with relearning grammar my senior year of college. Making life hard for myself is what I do.


Excitement about learning how to edit, caused me to rush to class the first day. (infinitive)

Driven by pure, palpable passion I listened attentively as we learned literary terms and parts of speech. (participle)

Settling too soon in comfort, my confusion over where to place a comma, foreshadowed a change. (gerund)

My sanity has taken a turn for the worst: I am losing my mind with all of these confusing grammar rules! (participle)

And after the first eight and a half minute quiz, my life was thrown into complete turmoil. (participle)

I realize, that to reduce grammar stress I may have to read more books and do more grammar exercises. (infinitive)

I wonder if funding students' homework assignments might motivate them more. (gerund)

Surely, dreaming of a little grammar incentive is not a crime. (gerund)

If one were to restructure grammar to make it easier, that might help too. (infinitive)


So, does everyone agree I used the verbals right? Can you spot more verbals? I can! I think grammar school is working ... I hope.