A torrent of angry criticism rained on the newspaper Tuesday about that day’s gigantic front-page photo of a bloodied, injured man being clumsily carried by officers from a classroom building in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre. The photo – which some readers mistakenly thought showed the person’s penis – ran beneath this massive headline: “MASSACRE: Shooter kills 32 at Va. Tech in nation’s worst rampage.”
“How could you?” asked numerous readers, several of whom objected to the graphic nature of the photo, without mentioning the genital issue. “What if that was your son there?” was a frequent follow-up question. Many said they wanted The Pilot to “show more respect.”
Tuesday’s front-page presentation had its supporters, though more muted: “Circumstances as they were deserved some blood above the fold,” e-mailed a student journalist in Texas who’s a Virginia native. Said Sue Hutson of Chesapeake: “It is a newspaper’s responsibility to report the stories accurately, regardless of some readers’ outrage and disgust.”
Wednesday’s starkly simplistic front page – with a Hokies-colored commemorative ribbon atop an “in memory of” listing of victims, with their ages and identifying information and a refer to profiles inside – reversed the tide for many readers. We were showing respect, readers said, as they expressed their appreciation.
“The Virginian-Pilot certainly redeemed itself with Wednesday’s front page cover,” said Laura Jenkins of Virginia Beach, who objected to Tuesday’s cover photo. “What a simple, yet poignant tribute to those lives lost in Monday’s tragedy. Sometimes, printed words alone carry a more powerful message than a photograph ever conveys.”
“Wonderful, respectful treatment of these victims,” e-mailed Don Gartrell, adding: “My vocabulary fails me regarding Tuesday’s photo…. Shame, gentlemen. Shame on you all.”
Readers had a lot more to say about our coverage. Some objected to the “MASSACRE” headline, a term used by countless newspapers in some configuration. (Something “a little more humane” would have been more appropriate, offered Robert Craft of Norfolk, a 1965 Tech graduate.) Or they thought Seung-hui Cho, the 23-year-old killer who then committed suicide, received too much “publicity.” (Said Scott Patterson of Virginia Beach: If the paper had to print his photo, “you should have printed one of what he did to himself after he cowarded out.”) Gun-control advocates, aided by the press, were using the tragedy to promote their cause, some argued.
And so on.
All of this is understandable in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. I suspect that one complaining caller, who conceded that his outrage sprang more from the tragedy itself than the photograph Tuesday, represented many readers.
Pilot editor Denis Finley explained in a rare “From the Editor” column Wednesday that a lot of discussion and concern went into choosing Tuesday’s front-page photo. His bottom line: Yes, it was graphic and risky, but “it so perfectly captured the horror” of Monday’s carnage.
The Pilot could have published a photo of people grieving as its main art. There were plenty from which to choose; some were used as secondary or inside photos. But those types of photos, no matter how compelling, are somewhat generic in nature. They are not iconic of this tragedy.
Several newspapers used a wide shot of individuals being taken out of Tech’s Norris Hall that was less graphic, partly because it was taken at a distance. We could have used that photo, although it would not have captured the horror and the moment as well. And we certainly could have reduced the size of the one we used; that likely would’ve reduced the outrage.
Some of the reader anger sprang partly from the belief that the man – who some readers complained was being lugged like a side of beef by law enforcement officers – was dead. It turns out that Kevin Sterne survived. We reported that Wednesday, when Finley informed readers that the perceived man’s “apparatus,” as one caller put it, was a self-applied tourniquet.
The Pilot should have said in its photo caption that individuals believed to be alive were being carried out of the building, although the condition of the injured person pictured could not be determined. And certainly someone should have noticed the object protruding between his legs and tried to confirm what it was – although The Pilot’s policy would forbid airbrushing it out, as some readers suggested.
Finley wrote Wednesday that he expected some readers to be upset about the graphic nature of Tuesday’s front-page photo. If so, he should have considered publishing an explanatory note that same day giving the paper’s reasoning for running it. Readers, I think, would have appreciated that.
My bottom line on The Pilot’s coverage: Faced with multiple obstacles, including getting reporters to the scene in Blacksburg and gaining sources, Tuesday’s coverage – the front-page photo included – pulled known facts and other information together in a cohesive, textured presentation. The coverage since has been more personalized, localized and exhaustive.
And more “respectful,” some readers have opined.
