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.
I liked where you went with these photos. I think it is clear you are not afrais to take chances. I think we the only two people in the class who even cosidered publishing photo 3a in the first set. I like when you said it helps tell the story.
ReplyDeleteThe photo was the boy and the spiked fence was another photo that not many people would publish. On the other hand, I think people would find it interesting that a paper would publish a photo like that. It would definitly attract more readers. Good job.